For HumanNature.org.au  ·  By VeeMercado.com  ·  11 September 2026

Setting the scene

Human Nature Adventure Therapy gives free, long-term, nature-based mental health support to 14 to 18 year olds on the Far North Coast who cannot get it any other way, paid for by donors rather than government. HumanNature.org.au

Read together, the identified opportunities come down to one thing: data management and use. The team is interested in a single data lake that reads from the platforms they already use, so the numbers can be seen in one place, made sense of, and used to share success stories through visual reporting.

Everything below came from your own documents.

Browse each section:

DRAFT The problems, grouped by what causes them

Checked against: Jane and Jen transcript · Challenge Context · Program Performance Report · Reportabl Requirements · Knowledge Asset Register · Design Challenge Synthesis. NOT checked against, and never used as proof: Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx, which is AI-written and unreviewed.

Six causes, C1 to C6, and 1 Opportunity, C7.
Fixing a cause once could close several problems at a time. Tap one to read it in full.

C1 5 challenges The tool that did the adding up was switched off Impacted people: Jen Parke, CEO, Bianca Zingus, Team Leader C2 6 challenges The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointments Impacted people: Kane Abbott, Clinical Manager, Bianca Zingus, Team Leader, Practitioners C3 5 challenges The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intake Impacted people: Jen Parke, CEO, Bianca Zingus, Team Leader, Board and Risk & Compliance Committee C4 2 challenges Report building lands on the clinical leaders Impacted people: Bianca Zingus, Team Leader, Kane Abbott, Clinical Manager C5 3 challenges The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other Impacted people: Jen Parke, CEO C6 5 challenges The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support Impacted people: Practitioners, EveryoneC7There is no digital front door for young people and familiesOpportunity, not a cause. Raised in your own synthesis, set aside twice, and touched by one problem only.

DRAFT Who is carrying what

Checked against: Jane and Jen transcript · Challenge Context · Program Performance Report · Reportabl screenshots · HumanNature.org.au. NOT used as proof: Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (AI-written).

The same twenty-six problems, sorted by whose job they land on, with the causes behind each one.

Counting by hand

Jen Parke, CEO

9problems land here
4steps to get one number
3boards outside the clinical system
2,527appointments to account for in 12 months

What goes wrongThe tool that added her numbers up was switched off, so she now opens each system in turn, exports a spreadsheet, and counts by hand.

What they would rather doCatching a problem in the data early enough to fix it, and sitting in front of funders and local members.

🧰 What they use today — 8 tools
  • Cliniko Where every appointment and clinical note is kept. The system everything else gets checked against.
  • Monday.com Where enquiries, intake, caseloads, complaints and grants are tracked, because Cliniko cannot do those.
  • Excel Where numbers from the different systems get pulled together by hand.
  • Little Green Light Where donors and grants are recorded.
  • Xero Where money received is recorded. Treated as the point of truth for what came in.
  • Zapier Being set up to copy donation details from Xero into the donor record automatically. Not live yet.
  • Google Calendar Where grant deadlines sit, linked to the Monday.com boards.
  • The BOS Replaced Reportabl, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.

Cause:C1 The tool that did the adding up was switched offC3 The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intakeC5 The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P01P05P02P04P03P06P07P08P09

Building the report

Bianca Zingus, Team Leader

4problems land here
7people she supervises
8workers covered in the report

What goes wrongShe pulls the team's numbers out of four separate systems by hand to build one report, on top of supervising seven people doing complex work.

What they would rather doSupervising her seven practitioners, and noticing a discrepancy in time to nip it in the bud.

🧰 What they use today — 5 tools
  • Cliniko Where every appointment and clinical note is kept. The system everything else gets checked against.
  • My Outcomes Where a young person rates how they are going, at the start and end of each session, on their phone.
  • My Mind Star Where progress across seven areas of life is tracked with the young person, every few months.
  • Monday.com Where enquiries, intake, caseloads, complaints and grants are tracked, because Cliniko cannot do those.
  • Paper A hand-drawn map of where each worker was working, used to match a new referral to the nearest one.

Cause:C1 The tool that did the adding up was switched offC3 The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intakeC4 Report building lands on the clinical leaders

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P10P11P12P13

Three screens, one young person

Kane Abbott, Clinical Manager

5problems land here
3systems opened per client review
98%target for one short form

What goes wrongTo see how one young person is really going he opens three different systems and holds the picture together in his head.

What they would rather doDeciding who needs escalating, and presenting real cases rather than data packs.

🧰 What they use today — 3 tools
  • Cliniko Where every appointment and clinical note is kept. The system everything else gets checked against.
  • My Mind Star Where progress across seven areas of life is tracked with the young person, every few months.
  • My Outcomes Where a young person rates how they are going, at the start and end of each session, on their phone.

Cause:C2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointmentsC4 Report building lands on the clinical leaders

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P14P15P16P17P18

Forms in the field

Adventure Therapists and Therapeutic Mentors

3problems land here
7disconnected tools
16staff, up from 2 in five years

What goes wrongSessions end in a car or a driveway, not at a desk, so short rating forms get forgotten and nothing reminds anyone until a report catches it later.

What they would rather doBeing with the young person.

🧰 What they use today — 4 tools
  • My Outcomes Where a young person rates how they are going, at the start and end of each session, on their phone.
  • My Mind Star Where progress across seven areas of life is tracked with the young person, every few months.
  • Cliniko Where every appointment and clinical note is kept. The system everything else gets checked against.
  • Monday.com Where enquiries, intake, caseloads, complaints and grants are tracked, because Cliniko cannot do those.

Cause:C2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointmentsC6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P19P20P21

Seeing without access

Board members and Risk & Compliance Committee

1problem lands here
0figures available in the pack

What goes wrongThe numbers the board needs sit in a tool each member would have to be licensed for, alongside young people's names.

What they would rather doGoverning from a summary that carries no client names.

🧰 What they use today — 1 tools
  • Monday.com Where enquiries, intake, caseloads, complaints and grants are tracked, because Cliniko cannot do those.

Cause:C3 The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intake

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P22

Tools that do not talk

Everyone

4problems land here
$15kfloor discussed for the essentials
0IT staff in-house

What goes wrongLow-cost tools were chosen because they were affordable, and none of them pass information to each other, so people do the joining.

What they would rather doFrontline work with young people.

🧰 What they use today — 7 tools
  • Cliniko Where every appointment and clinical note is kept. The system everything else gets checked against.
  • Monday.com Where enquiries, intake, caseloads, complaints and grants are tracked, because Cliniko cannot do those.
  • My Outcomes Where a young person rates how they are going, at the start and end of each session, on their phone.
  • My Mind Star Where progress across seven areas of life is tracked with the young person, every few months.
  • Little Green Light Where donors and grants are recorded.
  • Xero Where money received is recorded. Treated as the point of truth for what came in.
  • Excel Where numbers from the different systems get pulled together by hand.

Cause:C6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P23P24P25P26

The Context Q&A

Checked against: Searched across all 18 extracted documents and the ACNC register. These are the gaps that search left.

Jen answered all four on 14 September 2026.

Priorities

2027 priorities are

  1. a. To find a Reportabl replacement. We have successfully adopted The BOS as a great Cliniko data aggregation and reporting tool.
  2. b. Build an automated data lake pulling client data from many sources such as Cliniko, My Outcomes, Outcome Star (Star Online), Xero, Little Green Light, Mailchimp, Employment Hero and monday.com for internal reporting and Grant and philanthropist reporting.
  3. c. Build an automated data-led impact storytelling tool to share with philanthropists.

Updated since Jen’s answer of 14 September 2026. Her original wording is in the answer to the first question below.

Logical steps

We need a data lake so the numbers from all our different platforms can be seen in one place, made sense of, and used to share success stories through visual reporting: the Human Nature way.

Decision

The team wants to remain using Google’s ecosystem.

Power BI was examined and found unaffordable. Looker Studio is the Google-native reporting tool and its own page states it is available at no charge for creators and report viewers, so readers need no licence.

Goals

What is Human Nature's 2027 goal?

Is there an event, application, or improvement you are putting your efforts into the most?

Assumed goals put to Jen:

a. to find a Reportabl replacement ASAP

b. build a “Young person portal”

c. build an automated data-led impact storytelling tool to share with philanthropists

Any other activities worth noting?

✅ Answered by Jen, 14 September 2026

“a. to find a Reportabl replacement ASAP. - we are going to trial this from this week - https://www.thebos.com.au/”

“b. Build an automated data lake pulling client data from cliniko, my outcomes, Oitcones Star and monday.com for internal reporting and Grant and philanthropist reporting”

“c. and Build an automated Data-led impact storytelling tool to share with philanthropists”

Finding: (b) and (c) were already in the design challenge synthesisThey are opportunity families 1 and 7 in that document. They have now moved from an idea on paper to a stated goal, which is a real change in status.
(c) still has no evidenced problem under itNothing in the twenty-six problems is about storytelling. That does not make it wrong, it means the case for it has to be made on opportunity rather than on pain. Worth knowing before it competes for money with (a) and (b).
Finding: The BOS has replaced ReportablTo replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.
Background checked before the question was asked
Where those three assumptions come from(a) is all through your conversation with Jane. (b) and (c) are opportunity families 5 and 7 in Human Nature's own design challenge synthesis.
Worth knowing before you answerNeither (b) nor (c) matches a single problem in this register. Your synthesis says as much itself: the portal “was not central in the challenge brief”, and storytelling “needs to be treated cautiously and probably sits later than the core data and reporting work”. So if either is a 2027 goal, it is a goal with no evidenced problem underneath it yet.
And the honest gapThe word 2027 does not appear once across all eighteen documents you shared, and the ACNC register has no field for future plans. This has to come from you.
Goals

What would a great small slice of a solution do to help you reach that goal?

Given that a full Reportabl replacement is out of scope here.

Which single additional piece, if it existed by itself, would make the biggest difference to the team’s week?

✅ Answered by Jen, 14 September 2026

“1. The bos will meet our immediate need of pulling aggregated client data from cliniko for internal and Grant reporting”

“2. pull 25/6 financial year data from those three sources into a spreadsheet- in the same way we produced for the Charles Sturt evaluation- So that we can use that to develop our impact report due to be published 30th of November”

Finding: the scope is one output, one existing format, three named sources, one fixed dateEverything it needs is already named, so nothing about the scope is open.
The template is already in the packThe Charles Sturt spreadsheet is in your share pack, de-identified: one row per young person, 187 columns. Cliniko identity and intake fields, the eight IAR-DST domains and level, 46 pairs of ORS date and rating from My Outcomes, and 7 Star assessments across 7 life domains from Outcome Star, each with a final. Nothing has to be designed from scratch.
Finding: the Cliniko data is coveredTo replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.
Background checked before the question was asked
A place to startCause C6 has the cheapest candidate on the whole list. Agreeing your shared definitions costs nothing, needs no software, and four other problems depend on it.
And the one that would close two rows on its ownOutcome Star's own page says it offers “reminders for overdue Stars and actions”. That is exactly the gap in P18 and P20, and it may already be inside what you pay for.
Process

You appear to run both Microsoft software and Google Workspace. Which does the team actually prefer to work in, and why?

Power BI is mentioned several times in the pack. What limitations does Google's Looker Studio have by comparison?

Knowing which one the team would rather live in changes what is free to you and what is not.

✅ Answered by Jen, 14 September 2026

“We are an entirely Google workspace operation.”

“Power BI was an unaffordable option we examined sometime ago.”

“I don't know anything about Google look studio, but our intention is to remain on Google.”

Finding: Looker Studio is the Google-native reporting layer and readers pay nothingIts own page states it is available at no charge for creators and report viewers, so the board and the team read reports without a licence each.
Finding: free Power BI cannot share reports at allSeparately from cost, Microsoft's own page says free Power BI users cannot use the sharing or collaborating features with others. A tool only its author can open was never going to work for board reporting.
Action: the free path is Cliniko CSV, Google Sheets, Looker StudioCliniko exports CSV, Google Sheets opens CSV, Looker Studio reads Google Sheets. Every step is inside a stack you already run, and readers pay nothing.
Background checked before the question was asked
Where both stacks appearJen mentions exporting to Excel, and separately having integrated Google Calendar with the Monday boards. The synthesis document was a Google Doc. Nothing in the pack says which is a paid account.
Where Power BI actually comes upIn your design challenge write-up, always alongside Looker Studio rather than instead of it: “Make.com, GoHighLevel, Lovable, Power BI, Looker Studio, Canva. Every team reached for off-the-shelf NFP-priced tools.” It is also what Reportabl's closing note points customers at. Nothing in the pack says Human Nature prefers it, which is why this was a question rather than an assumption.
The limitation runs the other wayMicrosoft's own page says free Power BI users “can't use the Power BI sharing or collaborating features with others, or publish content to other people's workspaces”. Looker Studio is free “for creators and report viewers”, so the people reading your reports pay nothing. For a board pack, that difference decides it.
Risk

Is the client data sitting outside Cliniko a known and accepted risk, or one you would want looked at?

A general work tool appears to be running workflows that hold personal information, including names.

It did not come up in the seven opportunities. It is raised here because it may be an organisational responsibility risk, with identifiable information about young people sitting outside the locked-down clinical system.

Is this already known and accepted, with controls around it? Or is it something you would want someone to look at properly?

✅ Answered by Jen, 14 September 2026

“Client data sits in monday.com outside cliniko And is included in buying a monthly internal management reports in a Google document saved in our Google Drive.”

“We had a cyber security assessment provided 12 months ago, which advised us that this current system meets our privacy and governance requirements.”

“It does make me nervous, however, and would always appreciate being able to access specialist advice on this”

Finding: the risk is assessed and accepted, and the register now says soA cyber security assessment twelve months ago found the current arrangement meets your privacy and governance requirements. That moves this from an open unknown to an assessed and accepted position, and the register now says so.
Action: confirm what the assessment covered, and whenIt was twelve months ago, before this year's growth and before Site 2 planning. And the flow Jen describes goes further than Monday alone: client data also lands in a Google Doc in Google Drive each month. Worth confirming the assessment covered that document, not only the board.
Scope of this noteThe assessment is not contradicted here, and nothing in this register is a qualified opinion on it. The only point is that an assessment has a date on it, and this one predates a year of change.
Background checked before the question was asked
Raised first by Human NatureThis is Human Nature's own concern, reflected back. Jen, on the participant register board: “it's a beautiful board, but the fact that we've got a board that sits outside our client, our very locked down client management. … Makes me very nervous.” And later: “I have to say, it makes me super nervous how dependent we are on Monday.”
But it dropped out of the synthesisThe design challenge synthesis treats Monday as a legitimate place for that data rather than a risk. Its architecture section lists “Operational systems (e.g. Cliniko, Monday)” and says “The operational systems (existing) hold the most rich, protected detail”. Of the six causes, this is the only one with no matching opportunity family at all.
It sits against an obligation you set yourselvesYour own challenge brief lists as a constraint: “Privacy and safeguarding obligations: Strict requirements for handling sensitive health, child protection, and personal information”.
What this is notThis has not been assessed against any particular law, standard or accreditation requirement. It is a question for whoever owns Human Nature's privacy and safeguarding obligations. It is flagged because it is the one item Human Nature named itself that then disappeared from the written record.

Which of your documents this leans on

Your conversation with Jane carries most of it. The AI-written draft brief is used for proposed ideas only, never as proof that a problem exists.

  • Jane/Jen meeting transcript 23Real conversation, machine-transcribed
  • Design Challenge Synthesis 10Human analysis and proposals
  • Delivery Partner Brief 10AI-written, not reviewed. Ideas column only
  • Challenge Context 9Written by Human Nature
  • Program Performance Report 9Human Nature's own report
  • Knowledge Asset Register 7Human-authored working document
  • Design Challenge Handover 4Third party, event output
  • Reportabl screenshots 4Image only, no text layer
  • Reportabl Requirements 4Written by Human Nature

Your tool stack: the platforms in use

Checked against: ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx, Tech Stack row · Jane and Jen transcript. No internet sources used on this tab.

Fifteen tools. Eight are named in your own tech stack list. The other seven are not, which is worth knowing in itself. Nothing here is from the internet.

ToolIn plain words Your words, copied exactlyAnd again, elsewhere
ClinikoIn useWhere every appointment and clinical note is kept.“Cliniko — clinical practice management”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack row“the source of data for most of the services and impact pillar”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 1:17
Monday.comIn useWhere enquiries, intake, caseloads, complaints and grants are tracked.“Monday.com — project management, risk and incident management, operational tracking”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack row“I have to say, it makes me super nervous how dependent we are on Monday.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 59:03
My OutcomesIn useWhere a young person rates how they are going, at the start and end of a session.“My Outcomes — clinical outcomes measurement”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack row“it’s INTL, that’s the international log on, INTL dot my outcomes.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 8:46
Star OnlineIn useWhere progress across areas of life is tracked with the young person.“Star Online — assessment tools”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack row“it was in fact triangle licence outcomestar.com dot a U.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 7:06
XeroIn useWhere money received is recorded.“Xero — accounting”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack row“Zero is our point of truth, because it’s deposited into the bank account, it comes into Zero automatically.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 1:03:59
Little Green LightIn useWhere donors and grants are recorded.“Little Green Light — donor CRM”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack row“LGL is little green light, which is our donor CRM”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 13:14
MailchimpIn useWhere newsletters go out from.“Mail chimp - marketing and newsletters”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack rowInformation not available
Website and social platformsIn useHow they talk to the public.“Website and social platforms for communications”ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Tech Stack rowInformation not available
Employment HeroIn use, not in the tech stack listWhere staff and HR records sit. The only tool Jen describes as reporting well.“It’s drawing from Employment Hero, which has pretty good reporting function.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 54:55Information not available
ZapierBeing set upBeing set up to copy donation details from Xero into the donor record. Not live at the date of the meeting.“No, we, we, we’re putting, um, it’s Zapier.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 13:34“my understanding of that Zapier integration is that it will automatically upload their giving data, which will be amazing for us.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 1:04:22
Google CalendarIn use, not in the tech stack listWhere grant deadlines sit, linked to the Monday boards.“I’ve integrated my Google Calendar with these boards, so that’s been useful in terms of managing it.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 57:18Information not available
ExcelIn use, not in the tech stack listWhere numbers from different systems get pulled together by hand.“we can export that into Excel”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 24:37Information not available
A general AI toolIn use, not in the tech stack list, not namedUsed to count exported treatment-note data. The pack never names which tool.“now I just use AI to tell me how many”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 24:51Information not available
The BOSIn use, replaced ReportablReplaced Reportabl, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.“The bos will meet our immediate need of pulling aggregated client data from cliniko for internal and Grant reporting”Jen Parke, CEO, answer to question 2, 14 September 2026“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”reportabl.io, the tool it replaced
Data PlayerFormerThe tool before Reportabl. Dropped because it could not drill down.“previously Data Player was the software we’d subscribed to.”Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 4:25Information not available

Two things stand out. Employment Hero is the only tool Jen describes as reporting well, and it is not in the tech stack list at all. And a general AI tool is in daily use for counting exported clinical notes, also not in the list, and never named. That one carries a risk, set out under cause C1 on the themes page.

Your ACNC register, read verbatim

Checked against: acnc.gov.au charity register, read in a browser on 11 September 2026.

Opened in the browser on 11 September 2026. Page loads, returns the Human Nature Adventure Therapy Ltd profile, no error. WebFetch cannot reach it (robots.txt), so it was read in the browser pane instead.

FieldExactly as printedWhere on the page
Legal nameHUMAN NATURE ADVENTURE THERAPY LTDPage H1
ABN47609965282Charity details
Address111 Tamar Street
Ballina
NSW, 2478, Australia		Charity details
Charity SizeMediumCharity details
Date established23/12/15Charity details
Last reported17/11/25Charity details
Next report due31/1/27Charity details
Financial year end30/06Charity details
Who the charity helpsAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
Females
Financially disadvantaged people
General community in Australia
Males
People from a culturally and linguistically diverse background
People in rural/regional/remote communities
Youth - 15 to under 25		Charity details
Summary of activitiesHuman Nature exists to expertly support and empower young people to heal and thrive through deeper connection with themselves, with their peers, with nature and their community. We offer a wide range of innovative nature-based programs that help young people access person-centred and trauma informed mental health support.Summary of activities
Charity programsRecre8
Youth mentoring
Activ8
Youth mentoring
Elev8
Youth mentoring		Charity programs
Total revenue$1,845,738.00Financial overview, stated as “Financial information from the latest AIS.”
Total expenses$1,989,369.00Financial overview, stated as “Financial information from the latest AIS.”
Expenses minus revenue$143,631.00 (arithmetic on the two totals quoted above, not a figure printed on the page)Derived

https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/1e2bd773-3aaf-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/profile

And the 2027 question

ANSWERED on 14 September 2026. Jen named three goals: find a Reportabl replacement as soon as possible, now met by The BOS; build an automated data lake pulling client data from Cliniko, My Outcomes, Outcome Star and Monday.com for internal, grant and philanthropist reporting; and build an automated data-led impact storytelling tool for philanthropists. Before she answered, none of this was written down anywhere: the string 2027 did not appear once across all eighteen documents in the pack, and the ACNC register carries no future-plans field. That is why it had to be asked rather than inferred.

Here is what the sources do establish about the near term, each with its own evidence.

A dated 2027 obligation

The only 2027 commitment traceable to a primary source is a reporting deadline, not a goal. The register lists “Next report due:” as “31/1/27”, against “Financial year end:” “30/06” and “Last reported:” “17/11/25”.

ACNC charity register, Charity details panel · https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/1e2bd773-3aaf-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/profile

Spending exceeded income in the latest reported year

The register shows “Total revenue: $1,845,738.00” against “Total expenses: $1,989,369.00”, under the heading “Financial information from the latest AIS.” Expenses exceed revenue by $143,631.00 (arithmetic on those two quoted totals).

ACNC charity register, Financial overview panel · https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/1e2bd773-3aaf-e811-a95e-000d3ad24c60/profile

Proving value is framed by HN as a survival condition

“We receive no ongoing government funding, operating almost entirely on a year-to-year philanthropic model supported by individual donors and private trusts. This creates a high-pressure environment where we must constantly prove our value to maintain financial viability.”

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row

Two organisational milestones are named as current, not future

“given accreditation has just been achieved, the organisation is preparing for Site 2, the team has carried a heavy workload through H1 2026”

Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Workshop readiness before opportunity design

Systems work was identified as the enabler of growth, in early 2026

“At the Human Nature strategic planning session in early 2026, the need for system improvements was identified as an important enabler of future growth.”

Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Background and context

Site 2 is explicitly deprioritised against current needs

Asset “Site 2 expansion plans and timeline”, rationale “Noted in the synthesis document as relevant context for how durable/scalable the reporting solution needs to be.”, status “Priority is building for current needs, while architecting for later expansion.”

Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 4, row 4

The CEO names this systems work as the priority to resolve

“But this particular piece of work that we’re talking about is the priority to resolve and we’re … We’re away from being there for sure.”

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 51:39 and 52:18

What the reporting has to prove

“we don’t have government contracts to report on KPIs, but we’ve definitely got to demonstrate throughput of clients to justify the cost”

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 38:05

Your resources: how this was made, and what to trust

✅ Trust the quotes.

Every quoted line was pulled back out of the original file or page and matched letter by letter. 277 fragments from your documents, 30 more for the opportunity mapping, and 32 quotes from outside pages. None failed. If a quote is here, it is real and you can check it.

✅ Trust the absences.

Where something says Information not available, that is a real search coming back empty, not a gap that was skipped. The 2027 goal is the clearest example: the word does not appear once across all eighteen documents.

⚠️ Treat anything marked DRAFT as a proposal.

The six causes, the role cards, the plain-English summaries, the assumed risks and the verdicts on whether a tool would help are all a reading of the evidence. They are not quoted from anywhere. They are the part most likely to be wrong, and the part most in need of correction.

⚠️ Nothing here verifies coverage.

Every check confirms that what is written down is accurate. No check can tell you whether a problem was missed entirely. If something important is absent, only you would know.

⚠️ This was written by AI and has not been reviewed by anyone at Human Nature.

That is the same weakness flagged in the draft delivery partner brief in your pack. The difference is only that this one shows its sources, so you can check it rather than take it on faith.

🚫 One file was quarantined.

“Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx” states on its own cover that it was AI-drafted and not reviewed. It is cited in the ideas panel of ten entries and nowhere else, and it is never used as proof that a problem exists.

🚫 Two files were excluded as evidence.

Two pitch documents use invented people such as “Stella Admin Analyst” and “Brett Practitioner”. They read like staff research but are characters written for a competition. Nothing from them appears anywhere in this work.

Reference checks

Every quote was pulled out of the original file again and matched letter by letter. Every number was checked separately. Here is what did not survive.

#What changedWhy
1Removed “3000+ apps” from the Make.com quote.The page writes it “3,000+ apps” with a comma. Not an exact match, so it went.
2Removed Google Apps Script entirely.The re-check returned a different sentence, and the page names no price, so it could not back a free or cheap claim.
3Rewrote the P04 figures.That screenshot has no text behind it. Its first row is unlabelled with a value of 143 that does not add up against the named rows or the total of 150, and the panel is cut off. It is now reported and left uninterpreted.
4Re-sourced the P19 quote to the Google Docs copy.The PDF splits that sentence across two columns, so it cannot be quoted from there.
5Corrected the P06 quote.The transcript has a full stop in the middle of the sentence. The quote now shows it.
6Added an ellipsis to the P14 quote.Jane speaks between the two halves. Each half was checked separately.
7Split the solutions column in two.Design challenge concepts, the synthesis and the draft brief are proposals, not things tried. They moved to their own ideas panel.
8Rewrote the outcome column.It now records only what actually happened.
9Added what each role would rather be doing.Each one carries its own quote and source.
10Added related problems and six causes.Reordered so related problems sit together. The P codes did not change.
11Kept the Looker Studio caveat.Re-confirmed the page still says Data Studio, and that the Looker Studio wording appears nowhere on it.
12Added the ACNC register.It cannot be read by the usual fetch tool, so the page was opened in a browser and read directly.
13Added a source-trust column and a trust key.So every row shows who wrote its evidence.
14Re-sourced P26 and P01.Both had leaned on the AI-written brief. They now quote the synthesis and the transcript. The AI-written brief is now cited in the ideas panel only, nowhere else.

Cause Details

The overall shape:

Each cause is a reason, not a complaint. Underneath each one sit several of the twenty-six problems, which is why fixing the cause is usually cheaper than fixing them one at a time.

Checked against: Jane and Jen transcript · Challenge Context · Program Performance Report · Reportabl Requirements · Knowledge Asset Register · Design Challenge Synthesis. NOT checked against, and never used as proof: Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx, which is AI-written and unreviewed.

Browse each section:

DRAFT The six causes

Each one carries the problems underneath it, the matching ideas from your own design challenge, and the risks it appears to expose Human Nature to.

C1

The tool that did the adding up was switched off

Jen Parke, CEO, Bianca Zingus, Team Leader  ·  5 problems

What it is

A tool called Reportabl sat over the clinical system and did two jobs: it added the numbers up, and it let you click any number to see which young people were behind it. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.

Why it matters

The second job matters as much as the first. Clicking through a number is how missing details were found and fixed, so losing it means nobody can check the figures they are now producing by hand.

What one fix would unlock

The BOS now covers the adding up. The click-through to named young people is the part four of these five rows still depend on.

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P01P05P02P11P04

🔁 Matching ideas from your own design challenge
Opportunity family 1: Data Foundation“build a trusted, low-maintenance evidence layer above existing tools rather than replacing the tools themselves”Their own reason for this family is the same problem C1 describes.“Currently, to derive insights using data that resides in different systems is manual and onerous.”
⚠️ Assumed risks

Not quoted from anywhere as a risk. These are risks inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

Assumed risk: figures reported to funders cannot be checked back to source.
“it might be about LGA and we’ve got 10 with no LGA listed. Clinico itself doesn’t provide us any way to verify that.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 4:53
Assumed risk: clinical note content is being put through a general AI tool, which the organisation’s own guardrails say should not happen.
Jen’s method: “I just literally download all that particular treatment note for that period, export it into Excel, and now I just use AI to tell me how many”. The synthesis lists as a guardrail: “no raw clinical notes in external AI tools”.
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 24:51; and Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Questions to answer before a full workshop, Guardrails

C2

The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointments

Kane Abbott, Clinical Manager, Bianca Zingus, Team Leader, Practitioners  ·  6 problems

What it is

Two separate tools record how a young person is going. Neither knows when an appointment happened, so a missed form is invisible until someone cross-checks by hand.

Why it matters

The data looks clean when it is not, because only the sessions that did get a form show up at all. Gaps are found after they have become a problem, not before.

What one fix would unlock

A prompt when a young person is overdue would turn this from an audit into a nudge, which is what the team asked for.

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P15P16P17P18P20P19

🔁 Matching ideas from your own design challenge
Opportunity family 1: Data Foundation“build a trusted, low-maintenance evidence layer above existing tools rather than replacing the tools themselves”Their worked example for combining systems is exactly the Cliniko-to-wellbeing-tool join that C2 is missing.“therapist coaching information based on identification of patterns or trends that span client structured lifecycle (Monday), wellbeing status (Mindstar) and therapeutic activities (Cliniko)”
Opportunity family 4: Reduce Practice Friction“reduce the small daily frictions that take practitioners away from young people or add cognitive load around their field-based work”Covers the forgotten forms in P19 and P20, as reminders rather than reports.“reminders for risk assessments, incident reports, and required review points”
Opportunity family 5: Young Person / Client Portal“create a simple, safe digital front door for young people and families to manage practical interactions with Human Nature”One item in the portal list matches P20. The rest of that family has no problem behind it in this register.“prompts to complete My Mind Star or other check-ins”
⚠️ Assumed risks

Not quoted from anywhere as a risk. These are risks inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

Assumed risk: a young person going backwards is noticed later than they could be.
“which is, again, really useful for team leader and for clinical manager in terms of, you know, escalation. But we’re pulling, we have to pull this manually from my outcomes.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 44:46
Assumed risk: not enough outcome data to acquit a grant or support research.
“a real risk for us is that we simply don’t have enough impact data to be able to demonstrate our impact with confidence and with enough rigour that, you know, certainly for research, but also for any … acquittal of a grant, for example.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 38:28

C3

The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intake

Jen Parke, CEO, Bianca Zingus, Team Leader, Board and Risk & Compliance Committee  ·  5 problems

What it is

Because the clinical system cannot show a worker's caseload or manage intake, that work moved to a general project tool. Young people's names now sit there, outside the locked-down system.

Why it matters

It works well enough that the organisation now depends on it, which is exactly what makes it a risk. It is also why board members cannot be shown the numbers without also being shown the names.

What one fix would unlock

Nothing built now should make it harder to move this back later.

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P06P12P13P03P22

🔁 Matching ideas from your own design challenge
Opportunity family 3: Practice Intelligence and Improvement“use governed, identified aggregate data across priority platforms to support operational tracking, supervision, coaching and practice improvement”Only the caseload half of C3 is covered, which is P12.“caseload and capacity patterns”
⚠️ Assumed risks

Not quoted from anywhere as a risk. These are risks inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

UPDATE, 14 September 2026: this has been formally assessed, and cleared. Jen: a cyber security assessment twelve months ago “advised us that this current system meets our privacy and governance requirements”. The risks below stand as written but should now be read as assessed and accepted, not as an open unknown. Jen adds that it “does make me nervous, however, and would always appreciate being able to access specialist advice on this”. Two things worth confirming: the assessment predates a year of growth and Site 2 planning, and the data flow reaches further than Monday alone, since Jen describes it also landing in a Google Doc in Google Drive each month.
Source: Jen Parke, CEO, answers to the four questions, 14 September 2026.
Jen Parke, CEO, 14 September 2026
Assumed risk: identifiable information about young people sits outside the locked-down clinical system.
“it’s a beautiful board, but the fact that we’ve got a board that sits outside our client, our very locked down client management. … Makes me very nervous.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 18:12 and 18:23
Assumed risk: this cuts against an obligation the organisation states for itself.
“Privacy and safeguarding obligations: Strict requirements for handling sensitive health, child protection, and personal information”
ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Constraints row
Assumed risk: widening access. Showing the board the numbers currently means giving board members access to the tool that holds the names.
“you want to share stuff with board members, but not have a Monday. … Licence that”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jane Sheehy 15:14 and 15:19

C4

Report building lands on the clinical leaders

Bianca Zingus, Team Leader, Kane Abbott, Clinical Manager  ·  2 problems

What it is

Assembling the regular performance report falls to the two people who supervise the practitioners. The reporting for the clinical governance group had grown so large it was cut back rather than automated.

Why it matters

This is the only theme where something was actually fixed. Both fixes were organisational: split the work, cut the scope, meet less often. No tool changed.

What one fix would unlock

The inputs to this report are the manual pulls described in other themes, so fixing those reduces this one rather than the other way round.

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P10P14

🔁 Matching ideas from your own design challenge
Opportunity family 3: Practice Intelligence and Improvement“use governed, identified aggregate data across priority platforms to support operational tracking, supervision, coaching and practice improvement”This family names the supervision purpose that C4's report collation exists to serve.“supervision preparation”
Opportunity family 2: Reporting Engine“create reusable funder reporting templates that can be re-run rather than rebuilt from scratch”Re-running a saved report instead of rebuilding it is what would reduce the collation load.“create reusable funder reporting templates that can be re-run rather than rebuilt from scratch”
⚠️ Assumed risks

Not quoted from anywhere as a risk. These are risks inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

Assumed risk: quality oversight slips when the person doing it is stretched.
“So it had sat with the team leader and I noticed she was really… struggling. … She supervises 7 people doing very complex work.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 36:22 and 36:32
Assumed risk: the reporting depends on particular people rather than a system.
“we actually divvied up what’s Bianca’s responsibility to collate and what’s Kane’s responsibility to collate”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 36:52

C5

The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other

Jen Parke, CEO  ·  3 problems

What it is

Every won grant is re-keyed into an obligations register by hand. Donation details are re-typed from the accounting system into the donor record. The donor database had drifted far enough that a casual was hired to clean it.

Why it matters

The CEO calls this area okay-ish and not the priority, and one automation for it is already chosen and part-built.

What one fix would unlock

This is the closest theme to finished. Worth confirming the part-built automation went live.

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P07P08P09

🔁 Matching ideas from your own design challenge
Opportunity family 6: Fundraising Enablement“use AI to help fundraisers tailor communications, prepare for meetings, draft follow-ups, and create funder-specific pitch materials”A direct match to the donor and grant work in P07 and P08.“use AI to help fundraisers tailor communications, prepare for meetings, draft follow-ups, and create funder-specific pitch materials”
⚠️ Assumed risks

Not quoted from anywhere as a risk. These are risks inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

Assumed risk: a funder reporting obligation gets missed, which is a contract matter.
“we just cannot drop the ball on any of these and it’s super easy to do. It is also though highly manual.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 57:57
Assumed risk: donor records drift out of date again, which has already needed paying someone to fix.
“we’ve had really poor data fidelity in here, which has been a source of intense frustration for me. When Paloma went on leave, I employed a casual to just clean it all up.”
Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 1:01:49

C6

The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support

Practitioners, Everyone  ·  5 problems

What it is

Affordable tools that do not talk to each other. Every new funder question rebuilt from scratch. Shared definitions that live only in people's heads. And no IT staff to look after whatever gets built.

Why it matters

These are conditions rather than tasks. They shape what kind of fix is safe to accept anywhere else in this register.

What one fix would unlock

Agreeing the shared definitions costs nothing and unblocks four other rows. It is the cheapest thing on this list.

Problems and Challenges from spreadsheet rows: P21P23P24P25P26

🔁 Matching ideas from your own design challenge
Opportunity family 1: Data Foundation“build a trusted, low-maintenance evidence layer above existing tools rather than replacing the tools themselves”Covers the shared definitions and system mapping behind P23 and P25.“mapping source systems, agreeing key data definitions”
Opportunity family 2: Reporting Engine“create reusable funder reporting templates that can be re-run rather than rebuilt from scratch”P24 is the problem this family was written for.“Without a better data foundation, each new funder requirement becomes another manual reporting burden.”
Opportunity family 4: Reduce Practice Friction“reduce the small daily frictions that take practitioners away from young people or add cognitive load around their field-based work”Covers P21, the practitioner moving between disconnected tools.“reduce the small daily frictions that take practitioners away from young people”
⚠️ Assumed risks

Not quoted from anywhere as a risk. These are risks inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

Assumed risk: whatever gets built becomes unsupportable.
“The main technical risk is maintainability. A clever prototype that only one volunteer understands would be a poor outcome.”
Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Important planning assumptions
Assumed risk: the same word means different things to different people, so the numbers reported outside are not consistent.
Asset “Business rules & definitions glossary”, status “Doesn’t exist.. need to draft and refine in consultation”
Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 2, row 4
🗒️ Opportunity, not a cause

C7There is no digital front door for young people and families

Your own synthesis raises this and then sets it aside. It is logged as a note so it is not lost, and marked clearly as a note rather than a seventh cause, because only one of the twenty-six problems touches it.

What your own synthesis says about it

All seven lines below come from one file: Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx (ZIP, Design Thinking Challenge folder)

WhatTheir words, copied exactlyWhere
Their heading for it“Opportunity family 5: Young Person / Client Portal”Opportunity family 5
Their own hedge, in their words“This was not central in the challenge brief, but it may be worth further consideration.”Opportunity family 5
The core idea“create a simple, safe digital front door for young people and families to manage practical interactions with Human Nature”Opportunity family 5, Core idea
What it might do“prompts to complete My Mind Star or other check-ins; calendar view of upcoming sessions and activities; ability to request reschedule or cancellation; secure messaging with therapist or team; activity reminders; transport or meeting-place details; consent and forms; transition support for young people moving into Elev8 peer support”Opportunity family 5, Potential functions
Why they think it matters“young people are digitally fluent and may find it easier to initiate some tasks or disclose early signals through a device. A portal could reduce admin for practitioners while giving young people more agency and predictability”Opportunity family 5, Why it matters
The warning they attach to it“a portal must not create a 24/7 clinical communication channel unless resourced and governed. It needs clear expectations, safeguarding rules, escalation pathways, accessibility, consent, and data protection”Opportunity family 5, Watch-outs
Where they put it in time“Horizon 3: explore client portal, longitudinal journey visualisation, ecosystem linkage, and donor relationship intelligence.”horizons

DRAFT Why this is logged as a note rather than a seventh cause

  • Only one problem in the register touches it, and only side on.
    P20 is about the check-in cadence slipping because practitioners are carrying complex caseloads. A portal that prompted the young person directly is one way to answer that, but the problem as evidenced is about practitioner load, not about young people wanting a way in.
  • Nobody in the pack asks for it.
    Across eighteen documents and the full conversation with Jane, no young person, practitioner or manager describes needing this. It appears once, in a document written to prompt a workshop, and nowhere else.
  • Their own document sets it aside twice.
    It says the family was not central to the brief, and the horizons put the portal in Horizon 3, behind the data foundation and behind storytelling.
  • Jen did not name it on 14 September.
    Asked what she most wants working, Jen named three things: a Reportabl replacement, an automated data lake, and an impact storytelling tool. A portal was not one of them.

DRAFT What would have to be true before it becomes a cause

  • Something said by young people themselves, rather than about them. One session with current Activ8 or Elev8 participants would settle whether this is wanted.
  • A position on the watch-outs their own synthesis lists: the 24/7 channel, safeguarding, escalation, accessibility, consent and data protection. Those are policy decisions, not build decisions, and they come first.
  • A clear answer on where it would sit. Cliniko already holds the appointments and My Outcomes already holds the check-ins, so a portal is a new front on existing systems, not a new system.
Sits closest to cause C2. Everything in C2 depends on a young person completing a rating at the right time. A portal is one answer to that, which is why the note sits next to that cause rather than on its own.
Problems it touches:P20P15P16P17P18P19

DRAFT Opportunities vs Problem analysis

Checked against: Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, opportunity families 1 to 7, plus the emerging architecture principle section.

They are not the same kind of thing.

Their seven are opportunities, which is to say things that could be built. The six here are causes, which is to say why something is going wrong. One opportunity can answer several causes and one cause can need several opportunities, so the two counts were never going to match.

Two of their seven have no evidenced problem behind them.

The young person portal and impact storytelling do not map to anything in the pack, and their own document already treats both as later or optional.

One of the six has no counterpart in their seven.

C3, client data sitting in a general work tool, is missing from their seven entirely.

Six was not a target.

No number was being aimed at. Twenty-six problems grouped into six causes because that is how the evidence fell. Five or nine would have been reported as five or nine.

Each of their seven, mapped to the six causes

Their opportunity familyCauses it matches here
Opportunity family 1: Data Foundation“build a trusted, low-maintenance evidence layer above existing tools rather than replacing the tools themselves”C1 The tool that did the adding up was switched offC2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointmentsC6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support
Opportunity family 2: Reporting Engine“create reusable funder reporting templates that can be re-run rather than rebuilt from scratch”C4 Report building lands on the clinical leadersC6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support
Opportunity family 3: Practice Intelligence and Improvement“use governed, identified aggregate data across priority platforms to support operational tracking, supervision, coaching and practice improvement”C3 The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intakeC4 Report building lands on the clinical leaders
Opportunity family 4: Reduce Practice Friction“reduce the small daily frictions that take practitioners away from young people or add cognitive load around their field-based work”C2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointmentsC6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support
Opportunity family 5: Young Person / Client Portal“create a simple, safe digital front door for young people and families to manage practical interactions with Human Nature”C2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointments
Opportunity family 6: Fundraising Enablement“use AI to help fundraisers tailor communications, prepare for meetings, draft follow-ups, and create funder-specific pitch materials”C5 The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other
Opportunity family 7: Data-led Impact Storytelling - later horizon“let the data tell the story first”No cause in this register matches it.

Where the two pieces of work genuinely differ

Their family 5, the young person portal, has almost no problem behind it here.

One line in it matches P20. Nothing else in this register is about young people needing their own access. Their own document says why: “This was not central in the challenge brief, but it may be worth further consideration.”

Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Opportunity family 5
Their family 7, impact storytelling, maps to nothing in this register.

No problem in this register is about storytelling. Their own document puts it last for the same reason: “Impact storytelling needs to be treated cautiously and probably sits later than the core data and reporting work.”

Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Opportunity family 7
C3 has no counterpart in their seven.

Client-identifiable data living in Monday.com is the one cause with no matching opportunity family. Their architecture section treats Monday as a legitimate system of record rather than a risk: “The operational systems (existing) hold the most rich, protected detail”, listing “Operational systems (e.g. Cliniko, Monday)”. That is the clearest difference between the two pieces of work.

Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Emerging architecture principle
Their family 4 is thin on their side too.

“This opportunity was underdeveloped in the challenge because the brief focused on funder reporting”. It maps to four of the problems here, so it is worth more than it was given.

Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Opportunity family 4

Impact Details  ·  the full register

The impact on different team members

Each entry logs the context of a problem, and the impact it has on different roles. Every claim sits beside the exact words it came from.

Checked against: All 26 entries checked against the six primary files above. Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (AI-written) appears in the ideas panel of 10 entries and nowhere else.

Understand each role’s impact:

C1 The tool that did the adding up was switched off

P01Proposed phase 1 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Reportabl was switched off and The BOS now provides the aggregated Cliniko view

aJen Parke, CEO.
Named as CEO in the brief (“Jen Parke (CEO)”) and on HumanNature.org.au/people. Runs the operational plan, board reporting, grant acquittals and is the fallback analyst when a number is needed.

RelatedP05P02P11P04All four are capabilities that Reportabl either provided or was asked to provide over the same Cliniko data. P01 is the parent: restoring the aggregation layer is the precondition for the other four. Nothing downstream can be fixed without it.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Pulls the aggregated service and impact numbers that sit behind the operational plan, board reporting and grant acquittals. Jen describes the value she gets from being in the data: “whenever you’re in the data, you end up picking up other things that are, you know, a discrepancy or potential problem and being able to nip things in the bud.” (Jen Parke 36:32)
cThe problem
Reportabl, the tool that sat over Cliniko and produced the aggregated view, was taken offline. It has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Jen's own account of what the data time is for: “whenever you’re in the data, you end up picking up other things that are, you know, a discrepancy or potential problem and being able to nip things in the bud” (Jen Parke 36:32). The spreadsheet manipulation is the part that is not that. At organisation level HN states the trade plainly: “This administrative burden diverts precious time away from frontline therapeutic work and makes real-time data visualization nearly impossible.”

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 36:32; and ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row

dStatistics
Read directly from the Reportabl dashboard screenshot (12-month period): 150 Number of Patients, 2,527 # of Appointments, 184 DNA. Source: Screenshot 2026-08-01 8.32.17 PM.png (ZIP root) [figures read from the image, no text layer to quote]
eCurrent technology
Cliniko (clinical practice management, source of truth); The BOS (replaced Reportabl); Excel / spreadsheets
fCurrent workaround
Download the full data set out of Cliniko into a spreadsheet and manipulate it by hand.
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen Cliniko.
  2. bRun/export the relevant data set.
  3. cDownload to spreadsheet.
  4. dManually manipulate and aggregate.
  5. eTranscribe the result into the operational plan or report.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Reportabl was procured and implemented, then discontinued. Before Reportabl: “previously Data Player was the software we’d subscribed to” (Jen Parke 4:25). A delivery partner brief has been drafted to go to a small number of trusted partners.
iImplemented or not, and why
Reportabl was implemented and then discontinued. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data. Jen's own account of the gap it left: “we haven't got reportable, so how do we even add, get any of this data? So it's been another … example of how reliant we were on it.” (Jen Parke 31:30, 32:11).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Design challenge, common threads: “Layer over, don’t rebuild.” and “The fix is plumbing, not new measurement.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature · AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 · Handover report.pdf, page 9). Synthesis opportunity family 1: “build a trusted, low-maintenance evidence layer above existing tools rather than replacing the tools themselves.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). Draft brief Phase 1 proposes: “Configurable-period aggregation of Cliniko appointment data: counts by appointment type, DNA rate, cancellation rate, and appointments by practitioner.” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). All proposals, none built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"This is the official API for Cliniko. Cliniko is a practice management system for healthcare practitioners." / "The Cliniko API is based on REST principles."

https://docs.api.cliniko.com/
P05Proposed phase 1 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

No way to click a number and see which young people are behind it

aJen Parke, CEO

RelatedP01P02P11Depends on P01. Drill-down is the second half of the same lost capability, and it is what makes the aggregate trustworthy, because it is how missing values were found and corrected.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Checks and corrects data quality in the client record set before anything is reported.
cThe problem
Losing Reportabl removed the ability to click a summary number and see which named young people sit behind it, which is how missing field values were found and fixed. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Same as P01. Verifying and correcting missing field values is data-quality maintenance, not the judgement work the role exists for. HN’s stated constraint: “Small team capacity: Most staff are frontline practitioners with limited time for administrative or technical tasks”

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Constraints row

dStatistics
“we’ve got 10 with no LGA listed” (Jen Parke 4:53).
eCurrent technology
Cliniko; The BOS (replaced Reportabl, which carried the drill-down). Predecessor tool named in the transcript as “Data Player”, which “could not” drill down.
fCurrent workaround
Search for the young person in Cliniko by hand after getting a list: “you got the list, but then you had to kind of go and search for them in Clinico” (Jane Sheehy 5:21, confirmed by Jen).
gSteps a to z
  1. aClick the summary figure.
  2. bReportabl returns the named list.
  3. cOpen Cliniko separately.
  4. dSearch for each name.
  5. eOpen the record.
  6. fFix the missing field. Jen notes a direct link would be “Three or four steps reduced” (Jen Parke 5:43).
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Data Player was subscribed to first and rejected on exactly this capability: “the main limitation that Data Player had that Reportable didn’t is that we could actually drill down on this data” (Jen Parke 4:25). Reportabl was then procured and delivered the drill-down.
iImplemented or not, and why
Implemented in Reportabl, then lost when Reportabl was discontinued. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data. Jen on why it mattered: “that function was actually incredibly important” (Jen Parke 4:53).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 1 proposes: “Drill-down from any summary figure to the underlying, named client list, for authorised clinical/leadership users — matching Reportable’s old drill-down behaviour, ideally linking through to the client’s Cliniko record.” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). Jane also proposed the endpoint on the call: “in an ideal world, that would link you right through to their record in Clinico as the logical endpoint, right?” (Jane Sheehy 5:00). Both proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"This is the official API for Cliniko. Cliniko is a practice management system for healthcare practitioners." / "The Cliniko API is based on REST principles."

https://docs.api.cliniko.com/
P02Proposed phase 1 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Intake complexity scores can only be counted by exporting treatment notes to Excel

aJen Parke, CEO

RelatedP01P25Depends on P01 for the data path and on P25 for the rule. Distinct from P01 because the blocker is different: Reportabl could read appointments but never treatment notes, so this was never solved even when Reportabl worked.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Reports the IARDST intake complexity mix against the operational plan target for board papers and grant reporting. The target is stated as “78% level 3, few percent level 2, level 4” (Jen Parke 17:26).
cThe problem
Reportabl could never read Cliniko treatment notes, only appointment data, so the intake assessment score has to be exported to Excel and counted with the help of a general AI tool. Jen counts the cost herself as four steps.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Board and grant reporting is the output; the counting is not. Jen describes the reporting purpose as demonstrating throughput: “we don’t have government contracts to report on KPIs, but we’ve definitely got to demonstrate throughput of clients to justify the cost” (Jen Parke 38:05). “This administrative burden diverts precious time away from frontline therapeutic work and makes real-time data visualization nearly impossible.”

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 38:05; and ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row

dStatistics
“that’s four steps though, right there” (Jen Parke 25:14). Target case mix “78% level 3” (Jen Parke 17:26). Reporting cycle moving from three-monthly to bi-monthly (Jen Parke 31:30).
eCurrent technology
Cliniko treatment notes; Excel; a general-purpose AI tool; Monday.com Activ8 participant register (IARDST re-keyed as a column)
fCurrent workaround
Download the treatment note for the period, export to Excel, then use AI to count how many clients sit at each level 1–5. The value is also re-keyed manually into a Monday.com column: “I can extrapolate that very manually from Clinico, but we’ve ended up putting it in here as a column so we can pull that easily” (Jen Parke 17:49).
gSteps a to z
  1. aTeam leader completes the 8-domain intake assessment as a Cliniko treatment note.
  2. bShe manually re-keys the level into the Monday.com register.
  3. cJen downloads that treatment note type for the period.
  4. dExports to Excel.
  5. ePrompts an AI tool to count levels 1–5.
  6. fPuts the counts into the report.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Reportabl was asked for an IARDST metric at implementation. On the Metrics sheet the row cells read “# Clients by IARDST”, location “Human Nature - Custom”, measure period “Six-monthly”, justification “Provides insight into the level of complexity of client cases” (Reportabl Requirements.xlsx (ZIP root), sheet: Metrics). Reportabl could not deliver it because it could only read appointment data.
iImplemented or not, and why
Never delivered. Reportabl could not read treatment notes: “Reportable couldn’t ever pull from a treatment note in Clinico. They can only pull from appointment data.” (Jen Parke 24:51). The manual export-and-count workaround is what is in place today.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 1 proposes: “Reporting on structured Cliniko treatment-note data — specifically the intake assessment (8 domains, scored to an overall level of 1–5) — replacing the current manual export-to-Excel-and-count workaround” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"This is the official API for Cliniko. Cliniko is a practice management system for healthcare practitioners." / "The Cliniko API is based on REST principles."

https://docs.api.cliniko.com/
P11Proposed phase 1 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Missed appointments are split by practitioner manually

aBianca Zingus, Team Leader (with Kane Abbott, Clinical Manager)

RelatedP01P25P10Depends on P01 for the data and on P25 for the DNA definition. Feeds P10, because this measure is a section of the report the team leader collates.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Reports missed appointments by practitioner as a data-fidelity and engagement quality measure. The measure matters: a DNA is defined as an appointment “cancelled within 24 hours” and is tracked deliberately because persistence with hard-to-engage young people is part of the model.
cThe problem
Mapping missed appointments against each practitioner is manual work out of Cliniko.
What this role should spend that time on instead

The point of the measure is clinical quality judgement, not the collation. Jen: “Is that an issue of engagement and that staff member’s capacity to engage with young people? And or is it actually about him not applying the business rule we’ve developed that defines the DNA?” (Jen Parke 33:12). That question is the work; splitting a Cliniko export by practitioner is not.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 33:12

dStatistics
“We had a staff member with like 120 did not attend when everyone else was sitting around … you know, 10 or 15” (Jen Parke 32:51, 33:12). Reportabl 12-month totals read from the image: 184 DNA against 2,527 appointments (Screenshot 2026-08-01 8.32.17 PM.png (ZIP root)). Report flag thresholds, page 3 of Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root): DNAs flagged in commentary above “6/YP/period”, cancellations above “3/YP/period”.
eCurrent technology
Cliniko (missed appointment report); Program Performance Report template
fCurrent workaround
Run the Cliniko missed appointments report, then put the result against each practitioner by hand.
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen Cliniko.
  2. bRun the missed appointments report for the period.
  3. cSplit the result by practitioner manually.
  4. dCompare each practitioner against the team pattern.
  5. eFlag outliers in the report commentary.
  6. fDecide whether the cause is engagement capacity or inconsistent application of the DNA business rule.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Reportabl carried a DNA metric. On the Metrics sheet the row cells read “Did Not Attend (DNA)”, “DNA”, description “Number of scheduled appointments that were not attended.”, measure period “Monthly” (Reportabl Requirements.xlsx (ZIP root), sheet: Metrics). It produced the aggregate but not the split by practitioner that this use needs.
iImplemented or not, and why
Partly delivered by Reportabl as an aggregate, never as a by-practitioner split. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 1 proposes: “Practitioner-level quality flags: appointments with missing or draft treatment notes; DNA-rate outliers against the team average (to catch inconsistent application of the DNA business rule, not to single out individuals).” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"This is the official API for Cliniko. Cliniko is a practice management system for healthcare practitioners." / "The Cliniko API is based on REST principles."

https://docs.api.cliniko.com/
P04Proposed phase 3 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

LGA splits quoted to MPs are worked out manually from suburb

aJen Parke, CEO

RelatedP01P05P13Depends on P01. Shares a root cause with P05, because the missing LGA values are exactly what drill-down was used to find. Shares subject matter with P13: both are about client geography.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Quotes local government area splits to funders and local members of parliament, for example “60% of our young people come from your … electorate” (Jen Parke 30:38–31:06).
cThe problem
LGA is derived by hand from suburb, and there is no automation.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Jen’s time here is stakeholder and funder relationship work. The LGA figure is an input to that conversation: “you know, 60% of our young people come from your … Your electorate” (Jen Parke 30:38, 31:06). Deriving the LGA from a suburb by hand is not.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 30:38 and 31:06

dStatistics
Read from the Reportabl Patients and Appointments by LGA screen (Month (12) filter selected), which has no text layer: Ballina 36, Byron 33, Lismore 32, Tweed 23, Richmond Valley 3, Total 150. The table also shows a first row with a blank LGA label and a value of 143. That value does not reconcile with the named rows or the total, and the panel is clipped at the right, so it is reported here and deliberately not interpreted. Source: Screenshot 2026-08-01 8.26.30 PM.png (ZIP root)
eCurrent technology
Cliniko (LGA field); Monday.com Activ8 participant register (LGA column); The BOS (replaced Reportabl, which carried the LGA Metrics chart)
fCurrent workaround
Read the suburb, work out the LGA, maintain it as a separate Monday.com column.
gSteps a to z
  1. aRead the young person’s suburb from the record.
  2. bWork out which LGA it falls in.
  3. cRecord it in the Monday.com LGA column.
  4. dFilter or group the board by that column when a number is needed.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Was a specified Reportabl chart and was delivered. Row cells read, in order: “Bar Chart Table”, “LGA Metrics”, “LGA [Row Headings]
Ballina
Byron
Tweed
Kyogle
Richmond Valley
Lismore
Other
TOTAL”, priority “High”. Source: Reportabl Requirements.xlsx (ZIP root), sheet: Reportabl Dashboard Request.
iImplemented or not, and why
Delivered in Reportabl. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 3 proposes: “Geographic/map-based visualisation of client location vs. practitioner location, to support workload allocation decisions.” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). Jane logged it on the call as a nice to have: “I’ll add that to the nice to have” (Jane Sheehy 30:14). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers." (page uses the legacy product name for Looker Studio)

https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio

C2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointments

P15Proposed phase 2 to 3 ✓ no AI-written source

One client review means opening three systems and combining by hand

aKane Abbott, Clinical Manager / Bianca Zingus, Team Leader

RelatedP16P17P18P21The parent problem of cluster B. Combining the three systems by hand is the task; P16 to P18 are specific instances of it, and P21 is the same problem felt by practitioners rather than leadership.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Runs monthly therapeutic case reviews with each practitioner for each client, using ORS and Mind Star to shape escalation or exit.
cThe problem
Building the full picture of one young person means opening three systems and aggregating by hand. This is not only a reporting problem, it interrupts clinical work.
What this role should spend that time on instead

The review itself is the clinical work. Jen: “through the therapeutic case reviews, which happen monthly for each client with each practitioner and the team leader, they’re reviewing it. It’s also, you know, it’s part of that shaping that client journey in terms of escalation or exiting.” (Jen Parke 10:43). Jane named the cost directly: it is “not just a performance management challenge, it’s just operating as a therapist challenge” (Jane Sheehy 11:27).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 10:43 and Jane Sheehy 11:27

dStatistics
Therapeutic case reviews “happen monthly for each client with each practitioner and the team leader” (Jen Parke 10:43).
eCurrent technology
Cliniko; My Mind Star (Outcome Star, outcomestar.com.au); My Outcomes (intl.myoutcomes.app)
fCurrent workaround
Open each system in turn and hold the combined picture manually.
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen Cliniko and read appointments and treatment notes.
  2. bOpen My Mind Star and read the Star records.
  3. cOpen My Outcomes and read ORS and SRS.
  4. dCombine manually.
  5. eDecide on escalation or exit.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No tool was tried for this. The cross-system join was built once, by the Charles Sturt researcher, as a spreadsheet: “there was every Clinico appointment, every appointment in Clinico, and then every ORS, SRS, and every Mindstar. And so, you know, we could see the gaps” (Jen Parke 46:29).
iImplemented or not, and why
Never implemented as an operational capability. The CSU spreadsheet was built for research, not for day-to-day use. Jen: “that’s kind of what we need to bring alive” (Jen Parke 46:29).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Jane proposed a single client view on the call: “they could maybe be working from that, like kind of my client dashboard that lives in there” (Jane Sheehy 21:43). Synthesis opportunity family 3 proposes “governed, identified aggregate data across priority platforms to support operational tracking, supervision, coaching and practice improvement” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). Both proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"We offer several API solutions that can reduce data-entry duplication, support a single point of truth and securely sync data."

https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/
P16Out of proposed phase 1 ✓ no AI-written source

Off-track and at-risk classifications are pulled out of My Outcomes manually

aKane Abbott, Clinical Manager / Bianca Zingus, Team Leader

RelatedP15P17Part of P15. Isolated as its own row because the blocker is a vendor integration question, not an internal process one.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Monitors which active young people are classified off track or at risk on their ORS trajectory, for escalation.
cThe problem
The classification is produced by My Outcomes but has to be pulled out by hand.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Escalation decisions are the work. Jen: the classification is “really useful for team leader and for clinical manager in terms of, you know, escalation” (Jen Parke 44:46). Logging in and transcribing the list is not.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 44:46

dStatistics
“Active Participants with ORS Off Track/At Risk - last year” is a standing section of the Program Performance Report (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 2, contents).
eCurrent technology
My Outcomes (intl.myoutcomes.app, US-hosted); Program Performance Report
fCurrent workaround
Manual pull from My Outcomes into the report. Scope was also deliberately limited: a request to also report on-track clients was refused by staff, “both the staff were like, no. If they’re on track, that’s awesome and we’re just working with them. We’re going to drown in data” (Jen Parke 45:02).
gSteps a to z
  1. aLog in to My Outcomes.
  2. bOpen the classification view.
  3. cRead off the off track and at risk clients.
  4. dTranscribe into the report.
  5. eEscalate as needed.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No integration was attempted. The working assumption on the call was that none is possible: “it has zero integration capacity that I’m aware of and based in the US” (Jen Parke 10:22).
iImplemented or not, and why
To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko. Scope was also cut deliberately: staff refused on-track reporting, “We’re going to drown in data” (Jen Parke 45:02).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Nothing in the pack proposes a specific fix for this. Synthesis opportunity family 3 covers it only in general terms. No design challenge submission addresses My Outcomes specifically.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms. It can also be used independently without disrupting your current clinical workflow."

https://myoutcomes.com/faq/
P17Proposed phase 2 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

An ORS gap is invisible because the outcomes tool does not know about appointments

aKane Abbott, Clinical Manager / Bianca Zingus, Team Leader

RelatedP15P18P19Same structural cause as P18: an outcome tool that holds scores but not appointments, so a gap is invisible. P19 is the behavioural cause of the gaps this row detects.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Checks that active young people have had an ORS collected recently enough for the outcome data to be trustworthy.
cThe problem
My Outcomes does not know about appointments, so an ORS gap is invisible unless somebody cross-checks by hand, and the data looks clean when it is not.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Chasing a gap after the fact displaces the supervision conversation it should trigger. Jen on what better systems would do: “you will never be across everything, but you’ve just got to have good enough systems to bring to your attention what you need to pay attention to in the right time” (Jen Parke 51:39).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 51:39

dStatistics
“Active cases without ORS/SRS data in 6+ Weeks” is a standing report section (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 2, contents). SRS completion rate target is “98%” (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 4).
eCurrent technology
My Outcomes; Cliniko; Excel
fCurrent workaround
Manually cross-check appointment records against ORS records. The Charles Sturt researcher built the join once as a spreadsheet: “there was every Clinico appointment, every appointment in Clinico, and then every ORS, SRS, and every Mindstar. And so, you know, we could see the gaps” (Jen Parke 46:29).
gSteps a to z
  1. aList active clients.
  2. bPull their appointments from Cliniko.
  3. cPull their ORS records from My Outcomes.
  4. dLine the two up by client.
  5. eFind appointments with no matching ORS.
  6. fRaise it with the practitioner.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
The join was built once by the Charles Sturt researcher as a spreadsheet and used to quantify the gaps. No tool or automation was tried.
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented. The manual cross-check is what happens today, and it happens after the fact.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 2 proposes: “Proactive alerts for clients overdue for a MindStar assessment (business rule: within the first 4 appointments, then at least every 4 months) or an ORS/SRS record — surfaced as a lead indicator, not just picked up in a periodic report.” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms. It can also be used independently without disrupting your current clinical workflow."

https://myoutcomes.com/faq/
P18Proposed phase 3 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Overdue Mind Stars are found only after they have become a problem

aKane Abbott, Clinical Manager / Bianca Zingus, Team Leader

RelatedP15P17P20Structurally identical to P17 with a different tool and cadence rule. P20 is the practitioner-side view of the same gap.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Enforces the Mind Star cadence rule so there is enough impact data to acquit grants and support research.
cThe problem
There is no automatic cross-reference between Cliniko and Mind Star, so an overdue Star is only found after it has already become a problem.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Same as P17. The value is the prompt, not the audit. Jen: “it would be incredible” to have the alert, against the present state, “we’re picking up after it’s become a problem” (Jen Parke 42:45, 43:04).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 42:45 and 43:04

dStatistics
Business rule: “every young person completes A MindStar with their practitioner within the first four appointments, and then every maximum four months afterwards” (Jen Parke 38:47). Report threshold on page 4 of Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root): the My Mindstar utilisation rate measure carries the flag “Flag <15%” against the definition “Mind stars not completed”, “in 4 months” (cells are split across lines in the PDF text layer).
eCurrent technology
My Mind Star / Outcome Star (Triangle, outcomestar.com.au); Cliniko; Monday.com
fCurrent workaround
Practitioners re-key the young person’s name into Mind Star; gaps are found in the periodic report rather than prevented.
gSteps a to z
  1. aClient is created in Cliniko and assigned a practitioner.
  2. bThe practitioner types the name into Mind Star.
  3. cThe practitioner creates the Mind Star record.
  4. dSomebody later compares Star records against appointment counts.
  5. eChase the missing ones.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
An API integration trial with the vendor was applied for: “They were doing a trial with API integration, and I put ourselves forward to participate in that trial. They’re based in the UK, and to be honest, I never kind of heard back from them on that” (Jen Parke 7:25).
iImplemented or not, and why
To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Jen described the alert she wants: “This client’s had four appointments and doesn’t have a Mindstar, that’s a problem. This client’s coming up for four months or this client’s had done three months and needs a Mindstar, like to have some kind of information.” (Jen Parke 42:45). Jane framed it as “a lead indicator or … a prompt rather than just … reporting” (Jane Sheehy 42:46). Draft brief Phase 3 proposes “API integration with MindStar/Outcome Star and My Outcomes, contingent on vendor capability” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"We offer several API solutions that can reduce data-entry duplication, support a single point of truth and securely sync data."

https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/
P20Proposed phase 2 ✓ no AI-written source

Mind Star cadence slips under caseload complexity

aAdventure Therapists and Therapeutic Mentors, practitioners

RelatedP18P19The practitioner-side cause of the gap that P18 detects after the fact. Paired with P19 because both are about an assessment being missed in the field, not about reporting.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Completes the Mind Star collaboratively with each young person on the required cadence.
cThe problem
The cadence is easy to lose track of because of caseload complexity, and the caseload attention naturally pulls toward the highest-risk young people.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Direct work with a small caseload of high-complexity young people is the role. Jen describes where attention necessarily goes: “often sometimes, you know, in their case mix, they’ll have two or three kids who are … And, you know, that’s where the energy and time gravitates.” (Jen Parke 43:29). Remembering an assessment cadence competes with that.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 43:29

dStatistics
Page 4 of Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root) carries the flag “Flag <15%” on the My Mindstar utilisation rate measure, and a second measure whose label reads, across lines, “Active clients with”, “more than 4 appts”, “with Mindstars”, “completed within first”, “4 appointments”.
eCurrent technology
My Mind Star / Outcome Star; Cliniko
fCurrent workaround
Picked up in the periodic report: “we’ve definitely been able to pick that up and go, okay, we’ve, you know, we’ve got an issue here with particular practitioners” (Jen Parke 38:47).
gSteps a to z
  1. aYoung person starts with the service.
  2. bPractitioner completes a Mind Star within the first four appointments.
  3. cRepeats at least every four months.
  4. dTeam leader checks the report for gaps.
  5. eChases the practitioner.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No tool was tried. Detection happens through the periodic report: “we’ve definitely been able to pick that up and go, okay, we’ve, you know, we’ve got an issue here with particular practitioners” (Jen Parke 38:47).
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented. Detection remains retrospective and report-driven.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Same as P18: the alert Jen described, and draft brief Phase 2 proactive alerts. Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"We offer several API solutions that can reduce data-entry duplication, support a single point of truth and securely sync data."

https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/
P19Proposed phase 2 ✓ no AI-written source

Practitioners forget the session rating scale, because sessions end in real life

aAdventure Therapists and Therapeutic Mentors, practitioners.
Qualified mental health professionals and youth mentors who meet young people in homes, schools, community spaces and outdoors.

RelatedP20P17P21Paired with P20: same moment, different instrument. Feeds P17, which is the detection of these gaps. Part of P21, the wider practitioner friction problem.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Runs sessions in the field and collects the Session Rating Scale at the end of every session.
cThe problem
Practitioners forget the SRS because sessions end in the middle of real life, not at a desk. The gap was large before anyone looked.
What this role should spend that time on instead

The session is the work. Jen’s account of the moment the SRS is missed: “we’ve been doing safety planning because they’re suicidal and I’m dropping off home and talking to their parents and we’re sitting together and making sure the safety plan’s in action.” (Jen Parke 48:07). The design challenge named the measure of success for the whole programme: “Time with young people is the measure.” and “The metric is admin minutes saved per week pertherapist.” (the Google Docs copy renders it without the space; the PDF lays the same sentence across two columns so it cannot be quoted contiguously from there). Source: Design Thinking Challenge/Copy of Human Nature - AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 - Handover report.docx, Common threads section, item 05.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 48:07; and Design Thinking Challenge/Copy of Human Nature - AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 - Handover report.docx, Common threads, item 05

dStatistics
SRS completion rate target: “98%” (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 4). Exact gap percentage: Information not available. After the conversation with staff: “we were able to just see this huge uptake” (Jen Parke 48:07).
eCurrent technology
My Outcomes (ORS and SRS, completed on the young person’s phone, “let’s be honest on their phone”, Jen Parke 39:54)
fCurrent workaround
A human conversation rather than a system prompt: “the staff are going, oh, someone’s watching this. I’ve had a reminder to do it. It needs to be brought back into my lens. Not in any punitive way, but just a human reminding way” (Jen Parke 48:28).
gSteps a to z
  1. aStart of session: young person completes the ORS on their phone.
  2. bSession runs.
  3. cEnd of session: young person completes the SRS.
  4. dPractitioner writes the treatment note.
  5. ePractitioner drops the young person home.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
A conversation with staff was tried, and worked: “we even just having that conversation, we were able to just see this huge uptake” (Jen Parke 48:07). No system prompt or reminder was built.
iImplemented or not, and why
Addressed by conversation, not by tooling, and the improvement is not protected by anything systemic. Jen on the mechanism: “the staff are going, oh, someone’s watching this. I’ve had a reminder to do it. It needs to be brought back into my lens. Not in any punitive way, but just a human reminding way.” (Jen Parke 48:28).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Synthesis opportunity family 4 proposes “reminders for risk assessments, incident reports, and required review points” and “verbal capture of session or case notes while travelling” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). Proposals, not built, and the synthesis notes the area “was underdeveloped in the challenge because the brief focused on funder reporting”.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms. It can also be used independently without disrupting your current clinical workflow."

https://myoutcomes.com/faq/

C3 The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intake

P06Proposed phase 2 ✓ no AI-written source

Client-identifiable intake and caseload data sits outside the clinical system

aJen Parke, CEO

RelatedP12P13P03P22The parent problem of cluster C. Cliniko’s gaps pushed workflow onto Monday.com; P12, P13, P03 and P22 are all consequences of that decision.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Runs referral, intake, caseload and grant workflow on Monday.com because Cliniko cannot do it.
cThe problem
Client-identifiable data now sits on a general work management tool outside the locked-down clinical system, and the organisation is heavily dependent on that tool.
What this role should spend that time on instead

“Small team capacity: Most staff are frontline practitioners with limited time for administrative or technical tasks” Running referral, intake and caseload workflow on a general work management tool is administrative infrastructure the organisation is maintaining itself rather than clinical or fundraising work.

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Constraints row

dStatistics
“now we’ve got kind of three separate boards that sit outside it” (Jen Parke 19:07).
eCurrent technology
Monday.com (inquiries, intake, Activ8 participant register, feedback and complaints, grant decision, grant application pipeline, project obligation register); Cliniko
fCurrent workaround
Monday.com boards with a manual link back to the Cliniko file: “then we’ve got the link to a Clinico file in here, which … As I guess a bit of a shortcut” (Jen Parke 27:48–28:17).
gSteps a to z
  1. aWebsite enquiry lands in the Inquiries board.
  2. bFiltered to volunteer, fundraising or client.
  3. cClient queries moved by the team leader to the Intake board.
  4. dManaged there.
  5. eOn acceptance, moved to the Activ8 participant register.
  6. fPractitioner, LGA, IARDST and consent stage maintained as columns by hand.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Nothing else was procured. A Global Impact Summit grant was identified as a possible funding route for building it: “there’s a grant opportunity that’s just opened through going to the Global Impact Summit where we can apply. for a grant that is basically to build the software that you need and will then own” (the full stop mid-sentence is in the transcript) (Jen Parke 18:34). Jen’s assessment of the alternatives: “there isn’t anything else off the shelf we can take that is as good enough as Clinico is” (Jen Parke 19:07).
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented, and deliberately deferred. Jen recognised the timing risk herself: “the grant comes along and we’re like, oh, this is, let’s just jump now and we’re not actually really at that stage” (Jen Parke 22:20).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Jen has raised purpose-building a client CRM: “we’ve also often talked about, God, if we could actually just purpose build our own client CRM. That would alleviate a whole lot of headaches” (Jen Parke 19:27). Jane proposed an incremental route: “My instinct on that would be to kind of sneak up on it” (Jane Sheehy 19:47). Draft brief Phase 2 proposes “Migrating client-identifiable operational tracking (inquiries, intake, activate/participant register) out of Monday.com into the more secure architecture established in Phase 1” and explicitly rules the CRM out of scope. Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Get 10 seats free" and "70% off additional seats"

https://monday.com/nonprofits
P12Proposed phase 2 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Cliniko cannot show caseload by practitioner at all

aBianca Zingus, Team Leader / whoever is allocating new referrals

RelatedP06P10P13The specific Cliniko gap that created P06. Feeds P10, since caseload views are a report section. Shares the allocation decision with P13.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Allocates incoming referrals to practitioners, balancing case mix across new, early intake and active clients, and travel geography.
cThe problem
Cliniko cannot show caseload by practitioner at all, and the Monday.com board built to compensate still requires the allocator to hold the picture in their head.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Allocation is a judgement about case mix and capacity, which Jen describes as the point: “we know that intake, onboarding, building relationship is super intensive. So we want to create that case mix of giving, you know, everyone should have a mix of, you know, new, early intake and active” (Jen Parke 26:19). Assembling the picture from a filtered board is not that judgement.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 26:19

dStatistics
Reportabl # of Patients by Practitioner chart, 12-month period, read from the image: Kane Abbott 65, Sally McAdam 58, Bianca Zingus 38, Jack Chiu 30, Jaclyn Cunningham 26, Tyarna Larkin 23, David Flanagan 21, Mitchell Cameron 14, Tylah Roach 14, Henry Ferrier 13, Kitty Wilson 8, Andy Hamilton 5, Heidi Vial 3, Systems Admin 2 (Screenshot 2026-08-01 8.32.17 PM.png (ZIP root)).
eCurrent technology
Monday.com Activ8 participant register (practitioner, LGA, IARDST, consent stage columns, filter by practitioner); Cliniko
fCurrent workaround
Build and maintain a Monday.com board outside Cliniko and filter it: “obviously in here we can philtre by practitioner” (Jen Parke 17:49, transcription renders “filter” as “philtre”).
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen the Activ8 participant register.
  2. bFilter by practitioner.
  3. cRead new, early intake and active counts.
  4. dJudge whether the case mix is balanced.
  5. eCheck location against who is already working in that town.
  6. fAllocate.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Building the reporting inside Monday.com was considered and rejected as more of the same problem: “we could build some reporting capacity in this, but it’s kind of, to be honest, being like just yet another … There’s gotta be an easy way” (Jen Parke 27:23, 27:35). Jane named the pattern: “the technical term is cludging” (Jane Sheehy 27:37).
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented. The Monday.com board is the standing workaround, and Jen’s verdict on it is “we’ve really stretched Monday to what it’s meant to be” (Jen Parke 41:27).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 2 proposes “Caseload and workload reporting by practitioner, client phase (new / early intake / active) and LGA — replacing the current manual filtering of the Monday.com Activate/Participant Register board.” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Free unlimited users" (open-source self-hosted tier, "20+ supported data sources", "Unlimited questions & dashboards")

https://www.metabase.com/pricing
P13Proposed phase 3 ✓ no AI-written source

Referral-to-practitioner geography was matched on a paper mud map

aBianca Zingus, Team Leader / Jen Parke when she ran intake

RelatedP12P06P04Part of the same allocation decision as P12. Shares client geography with P04. Sits inside P06 because the board is where the data lives.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Matches a new referral to a practitioner partly on geography, to reduce travel and use existing trips efficiently.
cThe problem
There is no map view, so the matching was done on paper.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Matching on geography is a service-efficiency decision, and Jen frames it as such: “we’re trying to make efficiencies of staff” (Jen Parke 29:32). Maintaining a mental or paper map of where staff are working is overhead on top of that decision.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 29:32

dStatistics
Information not available
eCurrent technology
Paper; Monday.com Activ8 participant register (client location column, and an unused “distance to usual meeting” column)
fCurrent workaround
A hand-drawn paper mud map of where staff were working. A “distance to usual meeting” column exists on the board but has fallen out of use: “We’re not using the column distance to usual meeting” (Jen Parke 30:23).
gSteps a to z
  1. aRead the new enquiry’s location.
  2. bRecall or look up which practitioners already work near there.
  3. cCheck that practitioner has capacity.
  4. dCheck the other matching criteria.
  5. eAllocate.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
A “distance to usual meeting” column was created on the Monday.com board and then abandoned: “We’re not using the column distance to usual meeting” (Jen Parke 30:23). Jane’s reading of why: “it’s just another job to maintain it” (Jane Sheehy 30:35).
iImplemented or not, and why
Tried as a manual board column and dropped because maintaining it was itself work. No automated replacement exists.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Jane proposed a map view on the call: “if you had a map view, which said, show me the staff member and show me the physical location of all the clients they’re working with on a map” (Jane Sheehy 29:06). Draft brief Phase 3 carries it as a nice to have. A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers." (page uses the legacy product name for Looker Studio)

https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio
P03Proposed phase 2 ✓ no AI-written source

Incident and complaint totals are counted board by board, by hand

aJen Parke, CEO

RelatedP06P22Consequence of P06: the boards exist, so the counting is manual. Feeds P22, because these are board-facing numbers.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Reports incident, complaint and suggestion volumes to the board.
cThe problem
Feedback and complaints live on separate Monday.com boards with no roll-up, so Jen opens each board individually to count.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Reporting incidents and complaints to the board is governance work Jen must do; opening three boards to count is not. “This administrative burden diverts precious time away from frontline therapeutic work and makes real-time data visualization nearly impossible.”

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row

dStatistics
Information not available
eCurrent technology
Monday.com (feedback and complaints boards)
fCurrent workaround
Open each Monday.com board in turn and count manually.
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen the incidents board.
  2. bCount.
  3. cOpen the complaints board.
  4. dCount.
  5. eOpen the suggestions board.
  6. fCount.
  7. gAssemble the totals into the board dashboard by hand.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Nothing was tried. The boards were built in Monday.com and the counting has been manual since.
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented. Manual counting is the current state.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Discussed on the call as a candidate for the de-identified layer: “I wonder if that’s that, I mean, that’s in that second lake, really, isn’t it?” (Jen Parke 14:42). Draft brief Phase 2 proposes a de-identified board reporting layer. Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Get 10 seats free" and "70% off additional seats"

https://monday.com/nonprofits
P22Proposed phase 2 ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Board oversight would need Monday.com licences and exposure to client data

aBoard members and Risk & Compliance Committee

RelatedP06P03Direct consequence of P06. The data board members need sits on a licensed tool holding client-identifiable data, which is the governance cost of the P06 workaround.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Receives operational and clinical data for governance oversight.
cThe problem
Data that board members need sits on Monday.com, which would mean buying board members licences and exposing them to client-identifiable data.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Board members’ time is governance oversight. Jane raises the problem from the board side, and the alternative she names is an extract rather than access: “you could have a an extract dashboard sort of thing” (Jane Sheehy 15:19).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jane Sheehy 15:19

dStatistics
Information not available
eCurrent technology
Monday.com; board and Risk & Compliance Committee reporting packs
fCurrent workaround
The CEO extracts and reassembles the numbers manually into board papers.
gSteps a to z
  1. aCEO opens the relevant Monday.com boards.
  2. bCounts or exports.
  3. cAssembles into the board pack.
  4. dCirculates.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No solution was tried. The CEO assembles board papers manually.
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented. Board and Risk & Compliance Committee reporting packs are listed as still to be collected in the register: status Missing, owner Jane (Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 2, row 10).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 2 proposes “A de-identified/aggregate reporting layer for board and Risk & Compliance Committee reporting, so board members no longer need Monday.com access or exposure to client-identifiable data.” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). Synthesis proposes the same as a governed layer with “small-cohort suppression, approved metrics, source tracing and human review before release” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers." (page uses the legacy product name for Looker Studio)

https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio

C4 Report building lands on the clinical leaders

P10Done: process change ✓ no AI-written source

Report collation landed on a team leader already supervising seven people

aBianca Zingus, Team Leader.
Supervises the practitioner team and, until recently, collated the Program Performance Report. Named as Team Leader in the transcript (“I met with Kane and Bianca, our team leader”) and as a practitioner in the Reportabl caseload chart.

RelatedP11P12P16P17The collation row. Its inputs are the manual pulls described in P11, P12, P16 and P17, so fixing those reduces this one rather than the reverse.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Collates the Program Performance Report, described in the report itself as: “This bi-monthly management report provides insight into Program Team outputs and outcome trends, highlighting consistencies in process and areas which may require additional supports” (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 1).
cThe problem
The collation load on top of supervising a complex caseload was visibly too much.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Supervision is the job. Jen: “She supervises 7 people doing very complex work.” (Jen Parke 36:32). Jen also names what the data time should produce when it works: “whenever you’re in the data, you end up picking up other things that are, you know, a discrepancy or potential problem and being able to nip things in the bud” (Jen Parke 36:32).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 36:32

dStatistics
“She supervises 7 people” (Jen Parke 36:32). Report cycle moving from three-monthly to bi-monthly (Jen Parke 31:30). Report covers 8 named practitioners across the Activ8 indicator table (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 3).
eCurrent technology
Cliniko; My Outcomes; My Mind Star / Outcome Star; Monday.com; Google Docs / PDF report
fCurrent workaround
The collation work was split between two people: “we actually divvied up what’s Bianca’s responsibility to collate and what’s Kane’s responsibility to collate” (Jen Parke 36:52).
gSteps a to z
  1. aPull appointment and DNA data from Cliniko.
  2. bPull ORS and SRS data from My Outcomes.
  3. cPull Mind Star data.
  4. dPull caseload and register data from Monday.com.
  5. eAssemble into the report template.
  6. fPresent findings at the bi-monthly program performance meeting.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No tool was tried. The response was organisational: scope was cut and the work was split between two people.
iImplemented or not, and why
Addressed by process change in the week before the meeting, not by tooling. Responsibilities were split: “we actually divvied up what’s Bianca’s responsibility to collate and what’s Kane’s responsibility to collate” (Jen Parke 36:52). Cadence moved to bi-monthly and the report was merged with operational plan reporting so “you’re only doing one report” (Jen Parke 31:30). Jen also cut the previous report’s scope: “there’s been some overkill here … sometimes like 150% when 80% would have been amazing” (Jen Parke 32:11).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Synthesis opportunity family 3 proposes using aggregate data for “caseload and capacity patterns; referral and engagement trends; outcome movement by cohort or pathway; supervision preparation” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Free unlimited users" (open-source self-hosted tier, "20+ supported data sources", "Unlimited questions & dashboards")

https://www.metabase.com/pricing
P14Done: scope cut ✓ no AI-written source

Clinical governance reporting had grown out of control

aKane Abbott, Clinical Manager.
Title confirmed on HumanNature.org.au/people. Shares report collation with the team leader and owns clinical governance reporting.

RelatedP10P25Same family as P10: reporting burden on clinical leadership. Connected to P25 because an agreed format still does not exist.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Prepares reporting for the clinical governance advisory group.
cThe problem
The volume of reporting going to clinical governance had become unmanageable.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Clinical case discussion, which is what replaced the data pack. Jen: “Let’s … actually present on work on case presentation.” (Jen Parke 54:25 and 54:45; Jane interjects between the two halves).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 54:25 and 54:45

dStatistics
Information not available
eCurrent technology
Cliniko; My Outcomes; Monday.com; Program Performance Report
fCurrent workaround
Scope was cut rather than automated, on the grounds that the group is advisory: “they’re not a committee of the board. They are an … advisory group. They do not have any right or need to have anything like this level of reporting going to them” (Jen Parke 54:11–54:25).
gSteps a to z
  1. aPull the clinical data.
  2. bAssemble the governance pack.
  3. cPresent to the advisory group. Replaced by: present on case presentation instead of data.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No tool was tried. The response was to challenge the requirement itself: “they’re not a committee of the board. They are an … advisory group. They do not have any right or need to have anything like this level of reporting going to them” (Jen Parke 54:11, 54:25).
iImplemented or not, and why
Resolved by scope reduction, and the loss of Reportabl was the forcing function: “it was actually a gift in that was one gift of reportable of going, look, we’ve had a very productive meeting without any of that data” (Jen Parke 54:25). The agreed current format still does not exist: asset “Clinical governance reporting — current/target format”, status Missing, owner Kane (Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 2, row 11).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Nothing in the pack proposes a tooling fix for clinical governance reporting. The register lists the agreed current format as still to be drafted.

j & k  A possible fix

No free or low-cost option could be verified against a live page. Nothing logged.

C5 The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other

P07Not in the brief ⚠ ideas column cites an AI-written source

Every won grant is re-keyed into the obligation register by hand

aJen Parke, CEO (handing to Hannah for contract management)

RelatedP08P09P24Cluster E parent. Shares the funder relationship with P24, where the reporting obligations entered here are actually discharged.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Maintains the grant application pipeline and project obligation register, and makes sure every funder reporting obligation is met on time. Jen values that it is working: “It’s actually working really well. I’ve integrated my Google Calendar with these boards” (Jen Parke 57:18).
cThe problem
Every step of moving a won grant into the obligation register and entering its contractual dates and responsibilities is manual, on work where a miss is costly.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Jen states her intent to move this work off her desk entirely: “Going forward, Hannah will be doing contract management, but I’m going to … really push that down the line to hand over to her” (Jen Parke 57:18, 57:57). The CEO time it currently consumes is time not spent on the funder relationships the model depends on.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 57:18 and 57:57

dStatistics
Information not available
eCurrent technology
Monday.com (grant decision, grant application pipeline, project obligation register, mirrored boards); Google Calendar; Google Drive (contract link); individual funder portals
fCurrent workaround
Mirror the successful-grant board into the project obligation board and key the contract terms in by hand; link the contract document; link boards to Google Calendar.
gSteps a to z
  1. aDecide whether to apply; record in the grant decision board.
  2. bIf yes, move into the application pipeline.
  3. cDraft.
  4. dReview and approve.
  5. eSubmit via the funder’s own portal.
  6. fMark pending.
  7. gReceive an email notification of success.
  8. hMove the item into the project obligation register.
  9. iKey in dates and obligations from the contract.
  10. jAssign responsibility.
  11. kLink the contract.
  12. lTrack against Google Calendar.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Off-the-shelf grant management software was considered and rejected on price: “there are really expensive off-the-shelf grant management things you can buy” (Jen Parke 58:42). Google Calendar integration with the boards was built and works: “It’s actually working really well. I’ve integrated my Google Calendar with these boards” (Jen Parke 57:18).
iImplemented or not, and why
Partly addressed. The board structure and calendar integration are in place and working; the data entry is not automated. Monday.com continues to be extended instead: “It’s another example of us going, let’s just keep pushing Monday.” (Jen Parke 59:03).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Draft brief Phase 3 proposes “Donor and grant reporting automation and segmentation beyond Little Green Light’s current capability” (Human Nature - Reporting Delivery Partner Brief - DRAFT.docx (ZIP root), Section 6). Synthesis opportunity family 6 proposes AI support for “funder profile notes, meeting preparation, follow-up email drafts, donor update drafts, pitch deck first drafts, renewal reminders” and sequences it after the evidence layer (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Get 10 seats free" and "70% off additional seats"

https://monday.com/nonprofits
P08Proposed phase 3 ✓ no AI-written source

Donor CRM data fidelity degraded far enough to need paid clean-up

aJen Parke, CEO, with Paloma and Andy (fundraising and engagement)

RelatedP09P07P24Shares the donor record with P09. Feeds P24: donor segmentation and funder-specific reporting draw on the same data.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Segments donors by journey stage and funding interest, and reports new donors by amount to the board. Jen likes this part: “what I also really love is we can do really good segmentation” (Jen Parke 1:02:34).
cThe problem
Data fidelity in the donor CRM had degraded badly enough that a casual had to be hired to clean it, and the areas-of-interest field is still the weak point.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Donor segmentation and relationship work is the return on this data. Jen: “in two months time, I’m going to be meeting with Aud Minette because they funded one young person’s journey and we need a case study. And so, you know, again, just getting into that kind of management of that work” (Jen Parke 1:03:38). Paid clean-up of degraded records is not that work.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 1:03:38

dStatistics
A casual was employed specifically to clean the CRM. Cost of that engagement: Information not available.
eCurrent technology
Little Green Light (donor and grant CRM); Google Calendar
fCurrent workaround
Paid manual clean-up, then a data hygiene expectation placed on the fundraising team: “It’s up to you guys to do really good data hygiene … We cannot let this happen again because we have to invest then to bring us, you know, to catch up” (Jen Parke 1:02:09).
gSteps a to z
  1. aIdentify the donor.
  2. bRecord their journey stage (identifying, cultivating, stewarding).
  3. cCross-reference against what they fund.
  4. dTag areas of interest.
  5. eSegment communications.
  6. fPush follow-ups into tasks and the calendar.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
A casual was employed to clean the CRM: “When Paloma went on leave, I employed a casual to just clean it all up” (Jen Parke 1:01:49). A data hygiene expectation was then placed on the fundraising team.
iImplemented or not, and why
Clean-up completed; ongoing discipline is an expectation, not a control. Jen’s own rating of the area: “So I feel like we’re okay on this one, like okay-ish” (Jen Parke 1:04:42).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Jane proposed a register of donor interests during the design challenge: “we kind of have a register of their interests so that when we’re generating a report, we’re telling the story that matches what that donor is interested in” (Jane Sheehy 1:00:55). A proposal, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"All accounts get their first 30 days free! No credit card required."

https://www.littlegreenlight.com/pricing/
P09In progress, HN-led ✓ no AI-written source

Giving detail is re-typed from Xero into the donor record

aJen Parke, CEO, with finance

RelatedP08P07A single automation gap inside the donor data problem described in P08. Distinct because a selected tool already exists for it.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Keeps each donor’s giving summary in the donor CRM current against money actually received.
cThe problem
Money lands in Xero automatically but a person has to re-key the detail into the donor record in Little Green Light.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Same as P08. Re-keying giving detail is clerical work sitting in the middle of donor stewardship.

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 1:03:38

dStatistics
Information not available
eCurrent technology
Xero (accounting, point of truth); Little Green Light (donor CRM); Zapier
fCurrent workaround
Manual re-keying of giving detail from Xero into the constituent record.
gSteps a to z
  1. aDonation is deposited to the bank account.
  2. bIt appears in Xero automatically.
  3. cA person opens the constituent record in Little Green Light.
  4. dKeys the giving detail in by hand.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Zapier was selected for this: “we’re putting, um, it’s Zapier … is the product we’re going to be using for that” (Jen Parke 13:34, 13:39). Jen’s expectation of it: “my understanding of that Zapier integration is that it will automatically upload their giving data, which will be amazing for us” (Jen Parke 1:04:22).
iImplemented or not, and why
Selected and in progress, not live at the date of the meeting. Jane asked “It’s not in place yet, or it?” and Jen answered “No” (Jane Sheehy 13:27, Jen Parke 13:34). The register records status “In progress (HN-led)” (Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 3, row 3).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

No further ideas in the pack beyond the Zapier build already underway.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

Free plan: "$0/month", "100 tasks per month"

https://zapier.com/pricing

C6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support

P21Not scoped ✓ no AI-written source

Practitioners move between disconnected systems for the same young person

aAdventure Therapists and Therapeutic Mentors, practitioners

RelatedP15P19P26The practitioner-side expression of P15. Contains P19 and P20 as specific instances. Constrained by P26, since any fix must be maintainable.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Works across Cliniko, Mind Star and My Outcomes for the same young person in the same week.
cThe problem
Moving between disconnected systems is frustrating, and the administrative load competes with the skills the role is actually hired for.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Direct work with young people. HN’s own framing of the trade: “This administrative burden diverts precious time away from frontline therapeutic work and makes real-time data visualization nearly impossible.” The design challenge converged on the same measure: “hours given back to frontline practitioners. Not dashboards shipped, not features built, not reports generated.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature · AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 · Handover report.pdf, page 9).

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row; and Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature · AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 · Handover report.pdf, page 9

dStatistics
“Human Nature has grown from 2 staff to 16 in the last 5 years” (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation). The design challenge framing counts “Seven disconnected tools. Reporting stitched by hand.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature · AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 · Handover report.pdf, page 7).
eCurrent technology
Cliniko; My Mind Star / Outcome Star; My Outcomes; Monday.com
fCurrent workaround
Hire people who can cope with both the clinical complexity and the admin. Jen on a cultural cost: “We definitely had an Aboriginal mentor who just went, oh, too much. … Very much technology and stuff” (Jen Parke 50:07–50:23).
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen Cliniko for appointments and notes.
  2. bOpen Mind Star for the Star.
  3. cOpen My Outcomes for ORS and SRS.
  4. dOpen Monday.com for register and intake status.
  5. eReconcile mentally.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
The organisational response has been recruitment rather than tooling. Jane’s description: “you’ve obviously done an incredible job of finding the unicorns out there who can hack … both” (Jane Sheehy 50:42). Jen named a cost of that approach: “We definitely had an Aboriginal mentor who just went, oh, too much. … Very much technology and stuff” (Jen Parke 50:07, 50:23).
iImplemented or not, and why
Not addressed. Jane put the scaling problem directly and Jen agreed: “if you’re going to scale, we need to make that … you know, the administrative burden bit of it much better, I think.” / “We really do, yeah, yeah.” (Jane Sheehy 51:02, 51:08; Jen Parke 51:14).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Jane proposed an abstraction layer on the call: “abstract the fact that we’re still relying on Clinico because if we’ve got this really great integrated reporting off the front of the lake … they could maybe be working from that” (Jane Sheehy 21:43). Synthesis opportunity family 4 proposes a “Practice Friction Toolkit: field-friendly tools for notes, reminders, safety check-ins, pool cars, peer support, and compliance tasks.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). Proposals, not built, and the synthesis flags the area as underdeveloped.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make. Linking your practice data to our workflow automation tool lets you instantly sync client profiles, update invoice sheets, and track appointments across your systems."

https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko
P23Org-wide ✓ no AI-written source

Low-cost tools were chosen for affordability and do not integrate

aWhole organisation, stated by leadership in the design challenge brief

RelatedP01P06P24P26The organisation-level statement of the fragmentation that produces cluster A and cluster C, and the reporting burden in P24.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Runs the service on low-cost off-the-shelf tools chosen because they were affordable.
cThe problem
The tools do not integrate, so back-end processes are manual counting and consolidation, which takes time away from frontline therapeutic work.
What this role should spend that time on instead

“This administrative burden diverts precious time away from frontline therapeutic work and makes real-time data visualization nearly impossible.”

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row

dStatistics
“Human Nature has grown from 2 staff to 16 in the last 5 years.” “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth (27 per cent) and LGBTQIA+ (11 per cent)” (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), same row). “9 months or 26 appointments on average” per engagement (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Partner Details table, Overview row).
eCurrent technology
Stated by HN under the heading “Current platforms (largely non-integrated):” as “Cliniko — clinical practice management
Monday.com — project management, risk and incident management, operational tracking
My Outcomes — clinical outcomes measurement
Star Online — assessment tools
Xero — accounting
Little Green Light — donor CRM
Website and social platforms for communications
Mail chimp - marketing and newsletters”, followed by “Key issue: Data silos requiring manual consolidation and reporting” (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Tech Stack row). Employment Hero is named for people and culture in the transcript (Jen Parke 54:55). Google Calendar and Google Drive appear in the transcript (Jen Parke 57:18, 1:00:40); no direct evidence in the pack confirms a paid Google Workspace tenancy.
fCurrent workaround
Manual counting and consolidation across systems.
gSteps a to z
  1. aOpen each source system.
  2. bExport or count.
  3. cConsolidate in a spreadsheet.
  4. dReconcile definitions by hand.
  5. eProduce the report.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
An AI and design thinking challenge was run at TAFE NSW Byron Bay on 22 April 2026, producing eight team submissions. Volunteer interest was generated and not taken up.
iImplemented or not, and why
No solution implemented. The synthesis records why: “Several participants expressed interest in ongoing volunteer support, but that interest has not yet been followed up or mobilised.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Background and context).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

HN’s own stated ideal solutions: “Automated data integration across multiple systems
Real-time dashboards for clinical outcomes, client journey, organisational impact, donor engagement, fundraising outcomes
Donor reporting automation and impact storytelling” (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge opportunity table, Ideal solutions row). Eight design challenge submissions are documented in Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature · AI x Design Thinking Challenge 2026 · Handover report.pdf, pages 7 to 8, including “The Impact Journey Engine”, “Impact Dashboard”, “Impact Intelligence Suite”, “Reframe.”, “ImpactLens”, “Outcomes Outdoors”, “Journey Weaver” and “Smart Funder Dashboard”. All concepts, none built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

Free plan priced at "$0/mo" with "Up to 1,000 credits/mo", "No-code visual workflow builder", "15-minute minimum interval between runs"

https://www.make.com/en/pricing
P24Org-wide ✓ no AI-written source

Each new funder requirement becomes another manual reporting job

aWhole organisation, funding and reporting

RelatedP23P07P08P01The funding consequence of P23. Depends on P01 for service data and on P07 and P08 for funder and donor data.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Meets increasingly specific funder reporting requirements, sliced by cohort, geography, program type and outcome type.
cThe problem
Each new funder requirement becomes another manual reporting job because there is no shared data foundation.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Meeting the funder requirement is the obligation; rebuilding the report each time is the waste. HN states the underlying pressure: “This creates a high-pressure environment where we must constantly prove our value to maintain financial viability.” (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Context/Situation row).

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Context/Situation row

dStatistics
No ongoing government funding; “operating almost entirely on a year-to-year philanthropic model” (ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root)). Planning ranges in the synthesis: “about $10k to $30k for discovery and $30k to $80k for a small paid pilot” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Option 2). Floor figure discussed on the call: “if you said we’ve got 15 grand, I think we could go, look, we can get the essential parts of reportable that we’re missing definitely in place within that” (Jane Sheehy 1:05:48).
eCurrent technology
All source systems plus spreadsheets
fCurrent workaround
Rebuild each funder report from scratch by hand.
gSteps a to z
  1. aRead the funder’s criteria.
  2. bWork out which slice of data is needed.
  3. cExport from each relevant system.
  4. dFilter to the cohort.
  5. eReconcile.
  6. fWrite the narrative.
  7. gSubmit.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
Nothing has been tried. The funder criteria taxonomy needed to make it work does not exist: asset “Funder criteria taxonomy: current & anticipated grant reporting requirements”, status “Missing — partially implied, not written down”, owner Jen (Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 2, row 14).
iImplemented or not, and why
Not implemented. No template mechanism exists; each funder report is rebuilt.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Synthesis opportunity family 2 proposes reusable funder report templates: “choose a funder, choose modules, confirm data inputs, generate an editable report, save the template, and re-run it next time.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). It also proposes a “Funder Criteria Taxonomy” and “Evidence Cards: source-traced units of impact evidence”. Named as “the highest-confidence near-term opportunity”. Proposals, not built.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"Free unlimited users" (open-source self-hosted tier, "20+ supported data sources", "Unlimited questions & dashboards")

https://www.metabase.com/pricing
P25Prerequisite ✓ no AI-written source

Business rules exist only verbally, so numbers are applied inconsistently

aWhole organisation, definitions and business rules

RelatedP02P11P14P24A prerequisite, not a consequence. Every measure in P02, P11, P14 and P24 depends on an agreed definition, so this should be resolved before or alongside any build.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Applies shared definitions such as DNA, cancellation, episode of care and engagement rate consistently across practitioners and reports.
cThe problem
The definitions exist only verbally and scattered, which produces inconsistent application and disputes about what a number means.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Applying the rule consistently is practitioner work; arguing about what the number means afterwards is not. Jen’s account of what a clean definition buys: it lets the team distinguish an engagement problem from a rule-application problem (Jen Parke 33:12).

Jane and Jen - Transcript 2026_08_21.docx (ZIP root), Jen Parke 33:12

dStatistics
The DNA example: one staff member at “like 120 did not attend when everyone else was sitting around … 10 or 15” (Jen Parke 32:51–33:12).
eCurrent technology
Reportabl Requirements spreadsheet (partial glossary); Program Performance Report; verbal practice
fCurrent workaround
A partial glossary exists in the Reportabl handover spreadsheet, including unresolved queries. On the Frequency row the definition cell reads “Number of appointments [all types or just F2F types] per week since the initial session.”; on the First Appointment row the definition cell reads “The clients first face to face appointment” and the adjacent comment cell reads “***please check this definition” (Reportabl Requirements.xlsx (ZIP root), sheet: Definitions). The report itself carries an open action: “Activ8 measures commentary: Need to clarify F2F vs case management definitions with Program Team (case management must not be F2F).” (Program Performance Report Jan-March 2026 (structure only).pdf (ZIP root), page 4).
gSteps a to z
  1. aPractitioner applies their own reading of the rule.
  2. bRecords the appointment status.
  3. cReport shows a variance.
  4. dTeam leader investigates whether it is behaviour or definition.
  5. eClarifies verbally.
  6. fRepeat.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
A definitions exercise was done with Reportabl at implementation and captured in the requirements workbook, including a flagged question whose cell reads “as a term is being used in different ways which may cause confusion. e.g. time to first engagement being a face to face appt” (Reportabl Requirements.xlsx (ZIP root), sheet: Questions). It was never consolidated into a single reference.
iImplemented or not, and why
Never completed. Status recorded as “Doesn’t exist.. need to draft and refine in consultation”, owned by Jen and Kane (Human Nature - Knowledge Asset Register.docx (ZIP root), section 2, row 4). The gap is still live in the current report, which carries the open action quoted in column f.
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Nothing in the pack proposes a tool for this. The register proposes the artefact itself: a consolidated glossary drafted “in consultation”, owned by Jen and Kane.

j & k  A possible fix

No free or low-cost option could be verified against a live page. Nothing logged.

P26Org-wide ✓ no AI-written source

Anything built has to survive in an organisation with no IT function

aWhole organisation, support and maintenance

RelatedP23P21A constraint on every other row rather than a problem with its own workflow. It determines what kind of solution is safe to accept anywhere in this table.

bDay to day, and what they get from it
Operates all of the above with no in-house technical staff.
cThe problem
Anything built has to be maintainable by an organisation with no IT function, which constrains what solution is safe to accept.
What this role should spend that time on instead

Delivering the service. HN has no IT function, so any maintenance burden falls on people whose time the constraint already describes as scarce: “Small team capacity: Most staff are frontline practitioners with limited time for administrative or technical tasks”

ByronDT_Human Nature - Challenge Context.docx (ZIP root), Challenge details table, Constraints row

dStatistics
Available volunteer coordination capacity: Jane Sheehy “up to half a day per week over the next three months” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Available coordinating capacity).
eCurrent technology
All of the above
fCurrent workaround
Volunteer and board contribution, plus general-purpose AI tools used as a stop-gap for manual counting.
gSteps a to z
  1. aIdentify the need.
  2. bFind volunteer or board capacity.
  3. cScope.
  4. dBuild or configure.
  5. eHope it stays supportable.
hOther solutions ACTUALLY explored
No support model has been put in place. Volunteer and board capacity is the only resource currently identified: Jane Sheehy is available “up to half a day per week over the next three months” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Available coordinating capacity).
iImplemented or not, and why
Unresolved. The synthesis names the risk: “The main technical risk is maintainability. A clever prototype that only one volunteer understands would be a poor outcome.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Important planning assumptions).
Ideas in the pack for this, never built

Synthesis proposes a “Fractional Operator Model: a lightweight support model so Human Nature is not left maintaining complex systems without in-house IT.” It sets out four resourcing options and names a preferred stance: “The hybrid model appears the strongest default if HN decides to proceed now”, while stating this is “a working hypothesis for the readiness discussion, not a commitment.” (Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx). A proposal, not adopted.

j & k  A possible fix, quoted from a live page

"If your organization qualifies for Google for Nonprofits, you can get Google Workspace for Nonprofits at no charge."

https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/2858465?hl=en

Solution options

Exploring Ideas and Solutions out there

An exploration into different technical possibilities.

Anything marked DRAFT is a reading of the evidence, not a quote. Jen’s own words sit on The Summary page, in green, under each question.

Browse each section:

Which tools could work

✅ 2 yes ❓ 24 maybe ❌ 78 no out of 104 checks

📉 Start here: Reportabl closed, and The BOS replaced it

“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”
“Any data we held in connection with your account will be permanently deleted from our systems on the 31st of July.”

Their own site says what they offer instead: “Built around your specific needs, using the same data connections you're familiar with, and delivered through Power BI.”

https://www.reportabl.io/

In plain words: Reportabl is not coming back. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data. That is why the Reportabl column below is a cross on all twenty-six rows.

  • ✅Yes. The company’s own words address this exact problem.
  • ❓Maybe. They say something close. Worth one email before anyone prices work.
  • ❌No. Nothing on their pages touches it, or the product has closed.

Tools you already know, checked problem by problem

Only two of the 104 checks are a clear yes, and both are the same feature.

ProblemIn plain words 📉 Reportabl⭐ Outcome Star 📈 MyOutcomes🔗 Make.com
C1 The tool that did the adding up was switched off
P01Reportabl was switched off and The BOS now provides the aggregated Cliniko viewThe old tool is gone for good. Make can fetch the appointment data out of Cliniko, but nothing on its pages says it builds the report at the end.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko“watch ended appointments”https://apps.make.com/cliniko“search individual appointments”https://apps.make.com/cliniko
P05No way to click a number and see which young people are behind itMake can pull the list of people behind a number. Whether you can then click through to them depends on what gets built, which no page promises.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“search individual appointments”https://apps.make.com/cliniko“search practitioners”https://apps.make.com/cliniko
P02Intake complexity scores can only be counted by exporting treatment notes to ExcelCliniko does let software read treatment notes, and Make has a general-purpose way to ask for anything Cliniko offers. But no page says Make reads treatment notes, so this one needs testing before anyone relies on it.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“make an api call”https://apps.make.com/cliniko“Notes taken about a patient visit.”https://docs.api.cliniko.com/openapi/treatment_notes
P11Missed appointments are split by practitioner manuallyMake can fetch both the appointments and who the worker was, which is what this count needs. It still would not do the counting itself.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“watch ended appointments”https://apps.make.com/cliniko“search practitioners”https://apps.make.com/cliniko
P04LGA splits quoted to MPs are worked out manually from suburbMake can move the address data. Nothing on its pages turns a suburb into a council area, so that part stays manual unless someone builds it.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko
C2 The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointments
P15One client review means opening three systems and combining by handBoth wellbeing companies say they can connect to other systems. If they did, one screen instead of three becomes possible. Neither promises it, so both need an email.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❓“We offer several API solutions that can reduce data-entry duplication, support a single point of truth and securely sync data.”https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/❓“MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms.”https://myoutcomes.com/faq/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P16Off-track and at-risk classifications are pulled out of My Outcomes manuallyMyOutcomes already works out who is off track. The question is only whether it can hand that list over automatically instead of someone copying it.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“MyOutcomes software and algorithm ensure therapists and agencies have access to reports that evaluate therapeutic outcomes and clinical effectiveness.”https://myoutcomes.com/“MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms.”https://myoutcomes.com/faq/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P17An ORS gap is invisible because the outcomes tool does not know about appointmentsThis gap exists because MyOutcomes does not know when an appointment happened. Their own page says they connect to practice management systems, which is exactly the missing piece. Worth asking directly.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms.”https://myoutcomes.com/faq/“User-friendly dashboards and intuitive consoles offer at-a-glance alerts”https://myoutcomes.com/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P18Overdue Mind Stars are found only after they have become a problemOutcome Star says in its own words that it sends reminders for overdue Stars. That is precisely what is missing here, and it may already be included in what you pay for.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/✅“reminders for overdue Stars and actions, so your team can more easily adapt to using the Stars”https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P20Mind Star cadence slips under caseload complexitySame answer as the row above. If those reminders can be switched on, practitioners stop having to remember the schedule themselves.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/✅“reminders for overdue Stars and actions, so your team can more easily adapt to using the Stars”https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/“It's a way to complete Stars on a screen so you can facilitate constructive, impactful conversations”https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P19Practitioners forget the session rating scale, because sessions end in real lifeMyOutcomes talks about spotting trouble early through alerts. It does not say it nudges a worker who forgot the form, which is the actual problem here.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“User-friendly dashboards and intuitive consoles offer at-a-glance alerts”https://myoutcomes.com/“before small signs become big problems”https://myoutcomes.com/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
C3 The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intake
P06Client-identifiable intake and caseload data sits outside the clinical systemMake connects to both Monday and Cliniko, so data could move between them. It does not make the storage safer, which is the real worry here.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Architect your team's collaborative workspaces by integrating monday.com with Make to drive business results.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/monday“Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko
P12Cliniko cannot show caseload by practitioner at allMake can fetch who each appointment belongs to, which is the raw material for a caseload view. Someone still has to build the view.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“search practitioners”https://apps.make.com/cliniko“search individual appointments”https://apps.make.com/cliniko
P13Referral-to-practitioner geography was matched on a paper mud mapNone of these four do maps. This one needs a different kind of tool.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P03Incident and complaint totals are counted board by board, by handMake connects to Monday, so the counts could be collected automatically instead of by hand.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Architect your team's collaborative workspaces by integrating monday.com with Make to drive business results.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/monday
P22Board oversight would need Monday.com licences and exposure to client dataMake could copy figures out of Monday to somewhere the board can see, without giving board members a licence. Nothing on its pages covers removing the names.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Architect your team's collaborative workspaces by integrating monday.com with Make to drive business results.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/monday
C4 Report building lands on the clinical leaders
P10Report collation landed on a team leader already supervising seven peopleEach company will report on its own slice. None of them reports across all four systems, which is what this job actually needs.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❓“Generate reports at a click, with custom filters so you can see change from a different angle”https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/❓“MyOutcomes software and algorithm ensure therapists and agencies have access to reports that evaluate therapeutic outcomes and clinical effectiveness.”https://myoutcomes.com/❓“Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko
P14Clinical governance reporting had grown out of controlThis was fixed by agreeing to ask for less, not by software. No tool here changes that.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
C5 The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other
P07Every won grant is re-keyed into the obligation register by handMake connects to Monday, so moving a won grant between boards could be automatic.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Architect your team's collaborative workspaces by integrating monday.com with Make to drive business results.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/monday
P08Donor CRM data fidelity degraded far enough to need paid clean-upNo page from any of these four mentions your donor database. This one is out of their scope.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P09Giving detail is re-typed from Xero into the donor recordMake connects to Xero, so it could do the job you have already picked Zapier for. Worth knowing you have a second option.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Administer your company's bookkeeping, chase-free invoices, and payroll by automating Xero with Make. Linking this financial hub to our workflow automation tool lets you instantly auto-reconcile bank transactions, monitor billing histories, and send payment reminders.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/xero
C6 The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support
P21Practitioners move between disconnected systems for the same young personMake can carry information between the tools, which is some of what makes the day feel scattered. It does not give staff one screen to work from.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko“Architect your team's collaborative workspaces by integrating monday.com with Make to drive business results.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/monday
P23Low-cost tools were chosen for affordability and do not integrateMake connects to three of your systems by name. That is the closest thing here to tools that talk to each other.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko“Architect your team's collaborative workspaces by integrating monday.com with Make to drive business results.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/monday“Administer your company's bookkeeping, chase-free invoices, and payroll by automating Xero with Make. Linking this financial hub to our workflow automation tool lets you instantly auto-reconcile bank transactions, monitor billing histories, and send payment reminders.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/xero
P24Each new funder requirement becomes another manual reporting jobTwo of them can re-run their own reports with filters. Neither covers a whole funder report, which spans all your systems.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❓“Generate reports at a click, with custom filters so you can see change from a different angle”https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/❓“MyOutcomes software and algorithm ensure therapists and agencies have access to reports that evaluate therapeutic outcomes and clinical effectiveness.”https://myoutcomes.com/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P25Business rules exist only verbally, so numbers are applied inconsistentlyAgreeing what a word means is a conversation, not a purchase. No software solves this one.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
P26Anything built has to survive in an organisation with no IT functionMake has a free tier and needs no coding, which suits an organisation with no IT staff. Someone still has to look after whatever gets built.❌“Reportabl.io will close at the end of July 2026.”https://www.reportabl.io/❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❓“Up to 1,000 credits/mo”https://www.make.com/en/pricing

DRAFT Free tools that could cover a whole cause

Checked against: Live vendor and product pages only, each re-opened and each quote re-confirmed on 11 September 2026.

These are general tools, so their pages will never mention your specific problems by name. The evidence below is about what each one can do, scored per cause rather than per problem, because that is the honest level to judge them at. The verdicts are inferred; the quotes are theirs.

Cause 🟢 Google Workspace path🟦 Power BI Desktop🟠 Metabase
C1The tool that did the adding up was switched off✅This is the closest thing to a straight replacement, and every step is free. Cliniko hands you a CSV, Make reads a CSV and writes it into a Google Sheet, and Looker Studio builds the report off that Sheet. The people who read the report pay nothing either.“Your export will download as a CSV file, which can be opened in Excel, Numbers, Google Sheets, and most other spreadsheet tools.”https://help.cliniko.com/en/articles/1023831-export-your-data“Parses a CSV file”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/csv“Tabulate your business records by integrating Google Sheets to instantly update cells and manage cell comments.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/google-sheets“In the connectors panel, select Google Sheets.”https://docs.cloud.google.com/data-studio/tutorial-create-a-google-sheets-data-source“Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio❓It would build the report, and it is the direction Reportabl themselves pointed people in. The catch is sharing: on the free licence you cannot send the report to anyone. Only the person who built it can see it.“Explore Power BI Desktop, a free app from Microsoft to convert data to insight to action using data visualization and analysis.”https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/products/power-bi/desktop“Users with free licenses can use the Power BI service to connect to data and create reports and dashboards for their own use.”https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/fundamentals/service-features-license-type“They can't use the Power BI sharing or collaborating features with others, or publish content to other people's workspaces.”https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/fundamentals/service-features-license-type❓Free for unlimited people, but it expects a proper database. It does not read a spreadsheet or a CSV the way the other two do, so it needs more setting up first.“Free unlimited users”https://www.metabase.com/pricing“Athena, BigQuery (Google Cloud Platform), ClickHouse, Databricks, Druid, MongoDB, MariaDB, MySQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, Presto, Redshift (Amazon Web Services), Snowflake, SparkSQL, SQL Server, SQLite, Starburst, Vertica”https://www.metabase.com/docs/latest/databases/connecting
C2The wellbeing tools cannot see the appointments❓It could line up appointments against outcome forms in one sheet, which is the missing cross-check. It cannot send a reminder to a worker, so it finds the gap rather than preventing it.“Your export will download as a CSV file, which can be opened in Excel, Numbers, Google Sheets, and most other spreadsheet tools.”https://help.cliniko.com/en/articles/1023831-export-your-data“Tabulate your business records by integrating Google Sheets to instantly update cells and manage cell comments.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/google-sheets❓Same as above. It would show the gap, not stop it happening.“Users with free licenses can use the Power BI service to connect to data and create reports and dashboards for their own use.”https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/fundamentals/service-features-license-type❌Nothing here addresses this, and the database problem above applies.No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
C3The clinical system cannot show caseloads or run intake❓A board-facing report could be built without giving anyone a Monday licence, because Looker Studio costs nothing for readers. It does not move the names out of Monday, which is the underlying worry.“Tabulate your business records by integrating Google Sheets to instantly update cells and manage cell comments.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/google-sheets“Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio❌The free licence cannot share, so it cannot solve a problem that is entirely about showing other people the numbers.“They can't use the Power BI sharing or collaborating features with others, or publish content to other people's workspaces.”https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/fundamentals/service-features-license-type❓Free for unlimited people, which fits the board-access problem, but the database requirement still applies.“Free unlimited users”https://www.metabase.com/pricing
C4Report building lands on the clinical leaders❓If the collecting happens automatically, most of what makes this job heavy goes away. Building it is the work.“Your export will download as a CSV file, which can be opened in Excel, Numbers, Google Sheets, and most other spreadsheet tools.”https://help.cliniko.com/en/articles/1023831-export-your-data“Parses a CSV file”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/csv“In the connectors panel, select Google Sheets.”https://docs.cloud.google.com/data-studio/tutorial-create-a-google-sheets-data-source❓It could assemble the report. Whoever builds it would be the only one able to open it on a free licence.“Users with free licenses can use the Power BI service to connect to data and create reports and dashboards for their own use.”https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/fundamentals/service-features-license-type❌Nothing here addresses this.No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
C5The donor, grant and accounting records do not connect to each other❓Grant dates and obligations could be collected into a sheet automatically. Nothing here replaces the judgement about what each funder actually asked for.“Tabulate your business records by integrating Google Sheets to instantly update cells and manage cell comments.”https://www.make.com/en/integrations/google-sheets❌Nothing here addresses this.No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.❌Nothing here addresses this.No statement on this company's pages addresses this problem.
C6The tools underneath have no shared definitions, reusable reports or IT support❓If the charity qualifies, the whole Google side is free, and free readers means no licence to manage as the team grows. It does not remove the need for someone to look after what gets built.“If your organization qualifies for Google for Nonprofits, you can get Google Workspace for Nonprofits at no charge.”https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/2858465?hl=en“Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio❌A tool only one person can see is a poor fit for an organisation with no IT staff and a lot of people needing numbers.“They can't use the Power BI sharing or collaborating features with others, or publish content to other people's workspaces.”https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/power-bi/fundamentals/service-features-license-type❓Free for unlimited people, but self-hosting it is exactly the kind of upkeep an organisation with no IT staff should be careful about.“Free unlimited users”https://www.metabase.com/pricing

🔌 Do the file types line up?

Yes, on CSV. Cliniko’s own help page says “Your export will download as a CSV file, which can be opened in Excel, Numbers, Google Sheets, and most other spreadsheet tools.”

https://help.cliniko.com/en/articles/1023831-export-your-data

And Make has a module that “Parses a CSV file”

https://www.make.com/en/integrations/csv

In plain words: Cliniko hands out CSV, Make reads CSV, Make writes into Google Sheets, and Looker Studio reads Google Sheets and costs nothing for the people reading the report. That is a complete path using file types both sides already speak. Power BI would also build the report, but on the free licence the person who builds it is the only one who can open it. Metabase expects a proper database, which Human Nature does not have.

Reportabl alternatives

Checked against: Live vendor and product pages only, each re-opened and each quote re-confirmed on 11 September 2026.

✅ Tools you are already paying for or already have

Seven things you may already own. Nothing new to buy.

OptionTheir words, copied exactlyPage
Cliniko API"This is the official API for Cliniko. Cliniko is a practice management system for healthcare practitioners." / "The Cliniko API is based on REST principles."https://docs.api.cliniko.com/
Cliniko plan inclusions"Every Cliniko feature" is listed as included on every plan, alongside "100% free support", "Unlimited admin users", "Unlimited reception users"https://www.cliniko.com/pricing/
monday.com nonprofit program"Get 10 seats free" and "70% off additional seats"https://monday.com/nonprofits
Zapier free planFree plan: "$0/month", "100 tasks per month"https://zapier.com/pricing
Outcomes Star API options"We offer several API solutions that can reduce data-entry duplication, support a single point of truth and securely sync data."https://outcomesstar.org/using-the-stars/outcomes-star-online/
MyOutcomes export and integration"MyOutcomes offers flexible integration options with most Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and practice management platforms. It can also be used independently without disrupting your current clinical workflow."https://myoutcomes.com/faq/
Little Green Light pricing"All accounts get their first 30 days free! No credit card required."https://www.littlegreenlight.com/pricing/

💡 Ideas, tools you do not have today

Six free or low-cost options you would be adopting rather than continuing.

OptionTheir words, copied exactlyPage
Make.com Cliniko integration"Administer your health clinic's patient records, schedules, and billing files by integrating Cliniko with Make. Linking your practice data to our workflow automation tool lets you instantly sync client profiles, update invoice sheets, and track appointments across your systems."https://www.make.com/en/integrations/cliniko
Make.com free planFree plan priced at "$0/mo" with "Up to 1,000 credits/mo", "No-code visual workflow builder", "15-minute minimum interval between runs"https://www.make.com/en/pricing
Metabase, open source"Free unlimited users" (open-source self-hosted tier, "20+ supported data sources", "Unlimited questions & dashboards")https://www.metabase.com/pricing
Power BI Desktop"Explore Power BI Desktop, a free app from Microsoft to convert data to insight to action using data visualization and analysis."https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/products/power-bi/desktop
Google Looker Studio"Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers." (page uses the legacy product name for Looker Studio)https://cloud.google.com/looker-studio
Google Workspace for Nonprofits"If your organization qualifies for Google for Nonprofits, you can get Google Workspace for Nonprofits at no charge."https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/2858465?hl=en

To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.

The BOS trial, starting this week

Jen: “we are going to trial this from this week”, and “The bos will meet our immediate need of pulling aggregated client data from cliniko for internal and Grant reporting”. Everything in the table below was read off The BOS’s own pages on 18 September 2026. Everything in the list under it is inferred, not quoted.

What their own pages say

WhatTheir words, copied exactlyPage
What it is“The BOS integrates with Cliniko and all your cloud base software to report on all your data for business owners, clinical managers, and practitioners” (page description)https://www.cliniko.com/connected-apps/the-bos/
The closest thing to a drill-down claim“The BOS enables you to deep dive into all the different data that you are collecting.”https://www.cliniko.com/connected-apps/the-bos/
On joining up systems“The BOS allows cross platform automations that will plug the holes in all your leaking buckets.”https://www.cliniko.com/connected-apps/the-bos/
What it is for“Your one stop shop for all departments and parties in your business to understand relevant information about the business or individuals' performance”https://www.cliniko.com/connected-apps/the-bos/
Reports it documents“Travel Report”, “Practitioner Report”, “EOC - Episode of Care Report”, “Targets”https://knowledge.thebos.com.au/books/reports
Plan limits“Travel Report is only available on 'Entry' and higher plans”https://knowledge.thebos.com.au/books/reports
PriceLite “$250 / Per month” or “$3000 / Per year”. Entry “$500* / Per month” or “$6000* / Per year”. Business “$1500* / Per month” or “$18000* / Per year”. Enterprise “$POA”.https://www.thebos.com.au/pricing/
Price, on top“Entry and Business plans include 5 practitioners and 1 location. Additional practitioners $15 each per month. Additional locations $50 each per month.” The page does not state what the Lite plan includes.https://www.thebos.com.au/pricing/
How it connectsIt requires a Cliniko API key. Their own guidance warns: “API keys are very powerful, they can potentially enable full access to all of your business information.”https://knowledge.thebos.com.au/books/bos-setup-management/page/how-to-get-a-cliniko-api-key

It is a real Australian product, it is listed by Cliniko as a connected app, and it is built around practice performance: travel, practitioners, episodes of care and targets. It connects using a Cliniko API key, and their own setup guide is blunt about what that key can reach.

⚠️ Two things their pages do not answer

Their closest claim is “deep dive into all the different data that you are collecting”, which is marketing language rather than a documented feature. Nothing published says whether you can click a number and get to the named young people behind it, and nothing published says whether it reads treatment notes or only appointments. Those are exactly the two things Reportabl was used for, so they are the two things worth settling in week one rather than month three.

This is not a claim that it cannot do them. It is not stated either way on their pages, so it is a question for the trial, not an assumption.

DRAFT Eight things to settle during the trial

Five of these are problems already in the register, so the trial doubles as a test of whether they close. The last three are about cost, fit and getting out.

  • P05No way to click a number and see which young people are behind it
    Can you click a summary number and get the list of named young people behind it?

    This is the half of Reportabl that mattered most, and it is how missing values were found. Nothing on The BOS's public pages documents it either way.

  • P02Intake complexity scores can only be counted by exporting treatment notes to Excel
    Can it read Cliniko treatment notes, or only appointments?

    Reportabl never could, which is why the IAR-DST count is still done by hand through a general AI tool. If The BOS can, that closes a problem and removes a risk at the same time.

  • P11Missed appointments are split by practitioner manually
    Can it show did-not-attend and cancellations split by practitioner?

    Not just the totals. The by-practitioner split is what makes it a quality tool rather than a number.

  • P04LGA splits quoted to MPs are worked out manually from suburb
    Can it group by local government area?

    Or does that stay a manual column in Monday.

  • P12Cliniko cannot show caseload by practitioner at all
    Does its caseload view match how you allocate: new, early intake, active?

    The BOS is built around practitioner performance and targets, which is a different question from case mix.

  • Cost
    What does it actually cost you, with 14 practitioners and your locations?

    The listed Lite plan is $3,000 a year. The per-practitioner and per-location additions are stated for the Entry and Business plans, and the page does not say what Lite includes, so the real number for fourteen practitioners has to come from them. Your latest ACNC return shows expenses already exceeding revenue, so the yearly figure matters more than the trial.

  • Fit
    How much of it is about revenue, targets and growth?

    It is built for private practice business performance. Your service is free to the young person, so revenue-based measures will sit empty. That is not a fault, it is a fit question about how much of what you pay for you would use.

  • Exit
    If you stop paying, what happens to the reports and the connection?

    Reportabl closed with a month's notice and deleted the data. That is the scenario to ask about at the start, not at the end.

On cost: the listed Lite plan is $3,000 a year. The per-practitioner and per-location additions are stated for the Entry and Business plans, and the page never says what Lite includes, so the figure for fourteen practitioners has to come from The BOS directly. Your latest ACNC return, quoted on the references page, shows expenses already above revenue, so the number that matters is the yearly one with your team in it, not the trial.

The spreadsheet due 30 November

Jen: pull 2025/26 financial year data from Cliniko, My Outcomes and Outcome Star into a spreadsheet “in the same way we produced for the Charles Sturt evaluation”, to build the impact report published 30 November. This is the clearest piece of work in the whole exchange, because the output already exists in a shape everyone has seen.

📎 The template is already in your pack

The de-identified Charles Sturt extract you shared is one row per young person across 187 columns: the Cliniko identity and intake fields, the eight IAR-DST domain scores and the level they produce, up to 46 pairs of ORS date and rating, and up to seven Star assessments each with seven life domains, every set ending in a final. Nothing about the shape has to be invented.

Source: Human Nature client dataset (de-identified).xlsx, sheet “Cleaned Data (de-identified)”, from your share pack.

DRAFT What the job is made of

  • The output
    One spreadsheet, one row per young person, covering financial year 2025/26, in the shape of the Charles Sturt extract that already exists in your share pack.
  • Source 1, Cliniko
    Identity and intake fields: date of birth, postcode, sex, identification, referral source, first casenote date, intake note date, the eight IAR-DST domain scores and the resulting level, Activ8 session count, engagement status. Cliniko exports CSV, so this side is the least risky.
  • Source 2, My Outcomes
    Every ORS reading as a date and rating pair, in sequence, plus a final. The Charles Sturt sheet carried up to 46 of them per young person. Their FAQ documents an export to CSV or Excel from the Stats screen.
  • Source 3, Outcome Star
    Up to 7 Star assessments per young person, each with 7 life-domain sub-scores and a date, plus a final. Their site says API options exist.
  • The join
    One client key across all three. The Charles Sturt sheet used a single Unique ID, and the ID-to-name key stayed with Human Nature. That is the pattern to repeat, and it is also what keeps the working file safe to share.
  • Where things stand
    To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.

✅ Where the Cliniko data now comes from

To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.

DRAFT Datalake via Google solutions

Checked against: Google’s own live pages, re-opened in a browser on 18 September 2026 with the pricing region set to Sydney (australia-southeast1) and the rate toggle set to Monthly. Every figure below is the figure Google prints, in USD. Nothing here is taken from the pasted research; that research is checked against these pages in the second table.

The pasted research is right about the shape of this. It is wrong, or United States only, on four specifics, and one of those four is the difference between free and not free.

The direction holds and at your size it costs close to nothing. The trap is the free tier. Cloud Storage’s free 5 GB does not exist in Sydney. BigQuery’s free 10 GiB of storage and 1 TiB of queries do.

The Australian numbers, region set to Sydney

Read in the browser on 18 September 2026. Google prints these in USD and says so.

WhatWhat Google printsPage
Cloud Storage, Standard, Sydney“$0.023 / 1 gibibyte month”Data storage, region Sydney (australia-southeast1), Monthly
Cloud Storage, Nearline, Sydney“$0.016 / 1 gibibyte month”Same table
Cloud Storage, Coldline, Sydney“$0.006 / 1 gibibyte month”Same table
Cloud Storage, Archive, Sydney“$0.0025 / 1 gibibyte month”Same table
Writing files, Standard, per 1,000 operations“$0.005”Operation charges, single region, Class A, flat namespace
Reading files, Standard, per 1,000 operations“$0.0004”Operation charges, single region, Class B, flat namespace
Minimum you are billed for, by classStandard “None”  ·  Nearline “30 days”  ·  Coldline “90 days”  ·  Archive “365 days”Pricing notes, minimum storage duration
Pulling cold data back out“A retrieval fee applies when you read, copy, move, or rewrite object data or metadata that is stored using Nearline storage, Coldline storage, or Archive storage.”Retrieval fees
The currency warning“If you pay in a currency other than USD, the prices listed in your currency on Cloud Platform SKUs apply.”Repeated under every pricing table
BigQuery storage, Sydney“$0.023 / 1 gibibyte month, per 1 month / account”Storage pricing, Active logical storage, region Sydney
BigQuery storage, what is free“The first 10 GiB is free each month.”Same row
BigQuery queries, Sydney, above the free tier“$8.125 / 1 tebibyte, per 1 month / account”On-demand query pricing, region Sydney
BigQuery queries, what is free“The first 1 TiB per month is free.”Same row
The trial credit“The Free Trial gets you a $300 Welcome credit to spend over 90 days on various Google Cloud products and you won't be billed.”Google Cloud Free Program, free features and trial offer
The dashboard layer“Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”Looker Studio, Pricing. The page still uses the legacy product name
The dashboard layer, again“Our self-service tier remains available at no cost.”Same section
What you already hold“100 TB shared across all users”Google Workspace for Nonprofits plan card
What you pay for it“$0 USD”Same card

Sources, each re-opened on 18 September 2026.

https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricinghttps://cloud.google.com/bigquery/pricinghttps://docs.cloud.google.com/free/docs/free-cloud-featureshttps://cloud.google.com/looker-studiohttps://www.google.com/nonprofits/offerings/workspace/

The pasted research, checked line by line

Left column is what the research said. Middle is what the page says today. Nothing is marked wrong unless a live page contradicts it.

The claimVerdictWhat the live page says
Looker Studio is a visualisation tool, not a data lake, with no storage of its own.✅ Holds“Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”
The research lists, under a heading about every Google Cloud account: “Storage: First 5 GB per month of Standard Storage.”❌ Not in Australia“The Free Tier benefits for Cloud Storage apply only to usage in the us-east1, us-west1, and us-central1 regions.”
“Data Transfer: 100 GB of internet egress (moving data out of Google Cloud) per month.”❌ Australia is excluded“100 GB of outbound data transfer from North America to all region destinations (excluding China and Australia) per month.”
At-rest table: Standard $0.020, Nearline $0.010, Coldline $0.004, Archive $0.0012 per GB per month, stated as “based on US-regional pricing”.⚠ US figures“$0.023 / 1 gibibyte month”  ·  “$0.016 / 1 gibibyte month”  ·  “$0.006 / 1 gibibyte month”  ·  “$0.0025 / 1 gibibyte month”
“Class A Operations (Uploading/Listing files): ~$0.05 per 10,000 operations.” and “Class B Operations (Reading/Viewing files): ~$0.004 per 10,000 operations.”⚠ Wrong unitGoogle prices per 1,000, not per 10,000: “$0.005” and “$0.0004”
BigQuery gives “10 GB free storage & 1 TB query processing/mo”.✅ Holds, in GiB and TiB“The first 10 GiB is free each month.”  ·  “The first 1 TiB per month is free.”
Nonprofits get a $300 free trial credit.✅ Holds, with a clock“The Free Trial gets you a $300 Welcome credit to spend over 90 days on various Google Cloud products and you won't be billed.”
“go to your Google for Nonprofits dashboard, claim your Google Cloud Credits, and set up a standard bucket”.⚠ No amount is published“Start building on Google Cloud with free credits and select free services (up to specific monthly limits) to advance your nonprofit’s mission with cutting-edge solutions.”
Google Workspace for Nonprofits gives 100 TB of free pooled storage.✅ Holds“100 TB shared across all users”  ·  “$0 USD”
“If your total data is under 10 million cells, Sheets functions as an easy-to-use, secure central data repository.”⚠ Not checkedNo Google page stating that limit was found, so it is not repeated here as fact. Information not available.
HIPAA, a BAA, and Social Security Numbers.❌ Wrong countryHIPAA is United States legislation. Human Nature operates in New South Wales. The Australian framework is set out under the risk note below.
https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/16245748?hl=en

DRAFT What this would actually cost you

Calculated here, not quoted. The assumption is written into each line so it can be changed.

  • The shape of your data is already known
    The de-identified Charles Sturt extract in your share pack is one row per young person across 187 columns. The largest client count stated anywhere in the pack is the 150 on the Reportabl LGA screen for one month.
  • Take a number far above anything in the pack
    Assume 10,000 young people, all 187 columns, and an average of 20 bytes per cell. That is 10,000 × 187 × 20 bytes, about 37 MB. BigQuery’s free allowance is 10 GiB a month, which is roughly 10,700 MB. You would be using about a third of one percent of it.
  • Storage cost, therefore
    $0 in BigQuery while you stay under 10 GiB. If you also keep the raw CSV drops in a Cloud Storage bucket in Sydney, that is billed from the first gibibyte, because the free 5 GB does not apply here: at “$0.023 / 1 gibibyte month”, one gibibyte is about two United States cents a month.
  • Query cost, therefore
    $0 while the reports scan less than 1 TiB a month. To pass 1 TiB you would have to scan your whole 37 MB dataset about 29,000 times in a month. A daily-refreshed dashboard scans it about 30 times.
  • The credit is the safety net, not the budget
    “The Free Trial gets you a $300 Welcome credit to spend over 90 days on various Google Cloud products and you won't be billed.” Ninety days is the clock to watch, not the dollars.
  • What would actually make this cost money
    Not your row count. It would be dashboards left on live refresh against raw tables, many viewers each triggering a fresh scan, and files kept in Nearline, Coldline or Archive and then read back, which attracts a retrieval fee on top.

DRAFT Why this is a reasonable direction for you

✅ It is the stack you already chose.

Jen, 14 September 2026: “We are an entirely Google workspace operation.” and “I don't know anything about Google look studio, but our intention is to remain on Google.”

✅ The alternative was already priced and rejected.

Jen, 14 September 2026: “Power BI was an unaffordable option we examined sometime ago.” The Google reporting layer is the one with no per-seat licence: “Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”

✅ Your clinical system already hands out the file format this path reads.

Cliniko’s own help page: “Your export will download as a CSV file, which can be opened in Excel, Numbers, Google Sheets, and most other spreadsheet tools.”

✅ It answers goal (b) as Jen wrote it.

“b. Build an automated data lake pulling client data from cliniko, my outcomes, Oitcones Star and monday.com for internal reporting and Grant and philanthropist reporting”

✅ It matches your own synthesis, which asked for a layer rather than a replacement.

Opportunity family 1, in their words: “build a trusted, low-maintenance evidence layer above existing tools rather than replacing the tools themselves”. Cliniko, My Outcomes, Outcome Star and monday.com all stay where they are.

⚠️ What it does not fix

The Cliniko side is already handled. To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.

It is not a reporting product on its own. A data lake with nothing built on top of it reports nothing.

It adds something to maintain, which is the risk your own pack already named. “The main technical risk is maintainability. A clever prototype that only one volunteer understands would be a poor outcome.”

Source for that last quote: Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Important planning assumptions.

⚠️ The privacy question, in the right country

The research you pasted answers a United States question. Here is the Australian one. This is quoted regulator wording plus an inference from it, and it is not legal advice.

The security obligation, in the regulator’s words.
“An APP entity must take reasonable steps to protect personal information it holds from misuse, interference and loss, and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure. An entity has obligations to destroy or de-identify personal information in certain circumstances.”
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Australian Privacy Principles quick reference, APP 11
And if any of it leaves the country.
“Outlines the steps an APP entity must take to protect personal information before it is disclosed overseas.”
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Australian Privacy Principles quick reference, APP 8
DRAFT, three practical consequences.
Create the bucket and the dataset in australia-southeast1 or australia-southeast2, so the data sits in Australia and APP 8 does not come into it. De-identify before the reporting layer, which is exactly what the Charles Sturt extract already does, and keep the identifier-to-name map with Human Nature. Grant read access to the raw dataset to the smallest possible number of named people.
Proposed, not quoted. The two Australian regions are the ones named in Google’s own region selector on the Cloud Storage pricing page.
Your existing assessment does not cover this.
The cyber security assessment Jen described was done about twelve months ago and “advised us that this current system meets our privacy and governance requirements”. A new pipeline into a new platform is not the current system.
Jen Parke, relayed answer to question 4. The quoted fragment is hers; the sentence after it is not.
https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles/australian-privacy-principles-quick-referencehttps://help.cliniko.com/en/articles/1023831-export-your-data

Possible next steps

A data lake x Google Cloud Storage (GCS)

Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data. Building on that, this page outlines a possible next step toward a self-sufficient data lake that Human Nature owns, built on the Google stack.

A direction that creates room to resolve and simplify the organisation’s own ways of working rather than working around somebody else’s product.

A proposal only, not an agreed plan. Based on the assumption that Google Cloud Storage has not yet been considered as an option.

⚠️ The caveat: it is a huge endeavour

This direction leans heavily on Human Nature having a development team of its own. The platform cost is close to nothing at this data volume, as step 2 sets out with Google’s own Sydney pricing.

The people cost is the same risk Human Nature’s Design Challenge Synthesis already named: “The main technical risk is maintainability. A clever prototype that only one volunteer understands would be a poor outcome.”

Browse each section:

DRAFT Step 1. The workshop

Checked against: the twenty-six problems in this register and Jen’s relayed answers. The candidate reports below are drawn from evidence already in the register. The agenda and the rules are proposed, not quoted.

One question decides the whole workshop: what is the smallest first report that still needs more than one source?

Minimum two sources, maximum three.

What the room has to answer, per candidate report

  1. aWhat is this report for? The decision or the obligation it serves.
  2. bHow often does it have to be produced? Weekly, monthly, quarterly, once a year.
  3. cWho reads it? Board, a named funder, the team, the public.
  4. dWhat fields does it actually need? Name every column. If someone cannot name it, it is not needed yet.
  5. eWhich system holds each of those fields today? Cliniko, My Outcomes, Outcome Star, monday.com, Xero, Little Green Light, a spreadsheet, or somebody’s head.
  6. fHow many sources is that? Fewer than two, park it. More than three, park it. Two or three is the first report.
  7. gDraw it. On paper, in the room. One page: the numbers across the top, one trend, one table. That sketch is the brief for the designer in step 4.

A two hour shape for the session

  • 0 to 20 minutes, list every report anyone produces
    Including the ones nobody asked for. No debate yet.
  • 20 to 60 minutes, answer a to f for every report that touches two or three systems
    The source count does most of the sorting. Anything on one system, and anything on four, comes off the list at this point.
  • 60 to 90 minutes, pick one, then draw it
    Step g. Paper. If the room cannot agree on what the page looks like, the report is not ready.
  • 90 to 120 minutes, write down what would make it wrong
    Which definitions are contested, which field nobody owns. This is the shared-definitions gap in P23 and it is cheaper to catch here than after it is built.

Candidates the register already points at

Source counts are derived from the evidence in the twenty-six rows. Take them into the room as a starting list, not an answer. The two-source group is the shortlist. The three-source group is reachable. The one-source group is parked, below.

✅ Two sources, the shortlist

Candidate first reportSourcesWhy it is on this list
Sessions attended against wellbeing ratings. One row per young person: appointments kept, and the ORS ratings recorded around them2: Cliniko + My OutcomesThis is the clearest two-source report in the register. P17 is the problem exactly: an ORS gap is invisible because the outcomes tool does not know about appointments. P16 is the manual work that follows. Joining these two tables is the whole fix.
Overdue Star report. Star assessments set against episodes of care, so a slipped cadence shows before it becomes a problem2: Cliniko + Outcome StarP18 and P20. Both are about a Star being due and nobody seeing it in time. Neither tool can answer it alone, because one holds the assessment and the other holds the contact.
Caseload by practitioner. Clinical appointments set against the intake and caseload board2: Cliniko + monday.comP12 says Cliniko cannot show caseload by practitioner at all, and P06 is why that work moved to a board outside the clinical system. A joined read-only view answers it without moving anything back.

🟡 Three sources, reachable but heavier

CandidateSourcesWhy it is on this list
The 2025/26 financial year impact extract in the Charles Sturt format3: Cliniko + My Outcomes + Outcome StarThe most valuable report in the register, and the only one with a date on it. It now sits inside the rule. To replace Reportabl’s capability the team has now successfully adopted The BOS to draw out and aggregate all data from Cliniko.
One-client review sheet. Everything about one young person on one page3: Cliniko + My Outcomes + Outcome StarP15 states the problem plainly: one client review means opening three systems and combining by hand. Three sources, but the same three as the FY extract, so it reuses that plumbing rather than adding to it.

⬇️ One source, parked

CandidateSourcesWhy it is parked
Service volume from Cliniko: appointments, attendance and clients seen, by month1: ClinikoThis is the aggregation Reportabl used to do, P01 and P05. Reportabl has now been replaced by The BOS, providing highly customisable capability to aggregate Cliniko data. A data lake adds nothing here.
Activ8 participant counts from the monday.com register1: monday.comAlready maintained by hand on the board. A count off one board proves nothing about joining data.
Clients by local government area1: Cliniko, plus an unagreed ruleOne source, and it needs the suburb-to-LGA rule agreed first, which is the workaround described in P04. The rule is worth agreeing either way, because it also feeds the two-source reports above.

What leaves the room: one page per candidate, one chosen report, and a paper sketch. That is everything steps 2, 3 and 4 need.

Step 2. Size it, then cost it

Checked against: Google’s live pricing pages, read in a browser on 18 September 2026 with the region set to Sydney (australia-southeast1). The full figures and their sources are on the Datalake via Google solutions tab under Solution Options.

Questions to answer for effective cost analysis

  1. aHow much data. Rows times columns, for the chosen report only. Not the whole organisation.
  2. bHow often it is refreshed. Once a month is a very different bill from every hour, and almost always enough.
  3. cHow often it is looked at. Number of viewers times how often each opens it, because on this pricing model reading is what gets charged, not holding.

DRAFT Example cost calculation, based on assumptions

  • Data at rest: effectively free
    • The assumption. 10,000 young people, 187 columns each, 20 bytes a cell. That is far above anything stated anywhere in the pack.
    • The size that gives. About 37 MB.
    • What BigQuery gives away. “The first 10 GiB is free each month.” 10 GiB is about 10,700 MB.
    • So the BigQuery bill. $0. The dataset is using about a third of one percent of the free allowance.
    • If raw CSV drops are also kept in a bucket. A Sydney bucket is billed from the first gibibyte, at “$0.023 / 1 gibibyte month”. One gibibyte is about two United States cents a month.
    • Why there is no free bucket allowance here. “The Free Tier benefits for Cloud Storage apply only to usage in the us-east1, us-west1, and us-central1 regions.”
  • Data in transit and in use: effectively free
    • What is free. “The first 1 TiB per month is free.”
    • What one monthly report costs against that. Scanning 37 MB once a month is about three ten-thousandths of one percent of the allowance.
    • What a busier version costs. A daily refresh read by twenty people a day still sits inside the free tier.
  • The dashboard: no licence
    “Data Studio is available at no charge for creators and report viewers.”
  • The credit, and its clock
    • What it is. “The Free Trial gets you a $300 Welcome credit to spend over 90 days on various Google Cloud products and you won't be billed.”
    • How to use it. Treat the ninety days as the deadline for proving the first report. It is a clock, not a budget.
  • Set the alarm on day one
    • Why. “Any usage that exceeds Free Tier usage limits is automatically billed at standard rates.”
    • What to do about it, in Google’s words. “You can help monitor and control costs by setting up budgets and alerts through the Google Cloud console.”

🧮 The honest summary of the cost question

At Human Nature’s data volume, the money is not the constraint and this step exists to prove that with Human Nature’s own numbers. What grows the bill is frequency and audience, not size: a dashboard set to refresh live against raw tables, read by many people, many times a day.

Everything quoted here is re-quoted with its URL on the Datalake via Google solutions tab.

DRAFT Step 3. Sign up, set up, and ask about the grant

Checked against: Google Cloud Free Program documentation and the Google for Nonprofits help page About Google Cloud Credits, both read on 18 September 2026. The order of the steps is proposed, not quoted.

Setting it up, in order

  1. aOpen a Google Cloud account on the organisation’s own Workspace identity, not a personal one.
  2. bTake the trial credit and diarise the end date: “The Free Trial gets you a $300 Welcome credit to spend over 90 days on various Google Cloud products and you won't be billed.”
  3. cCreate one project, named for the report, not for the organisation.
  4. dCreate the BigQuery dataset and, if you want raw file drops, the Cloud Storage bucket, both in australia-southeast1 or australia-southeast2. Region is chosen once and cannot be changed later without moving the data.
  5. eSet a budget and an alert before loading anything. Google’s wording: “You can help monitor and control costs by setting up budgets and alerts through the Google Cloud console.”
  6. fLoad a de-identified sample first, not the real extract. The Charles Sturt sheet already shows the de-identified shape.
  7. gGive raw-data read access to the smallest number of named people. Everyone else sees the report, not the table.
  8. hConnect Looker Studio to the dataset and rebuild the paper sketch from step 1.

The nonprofit credits, honestly

What the page actually says.

“Start building on Google Cloud with free credits and select free services (up to specific monthly limits) to advance your nonprofit’s mission with cutting-edge solutions.”

What it does not say.

It names no dollar amount, no renewal period and no application step for a nonprofit-specific Cloud credit. The pasted research implied a pool that can be claimed. That is not stated anywhere on Google’s nonprofit pages. Information not available.

So do this instead.

Apply and ask, and do not put a number in a budget until Google gives you one in writing. The $300 trial credit is the only figure Google publishes, and it is a one-off over ninety days.

And know what happens when the trial ends.

“When the Free Trial ends, all resources you created during the trial are automatically stopped, your Free Trial billing account is suspended, and you aren't charged.”

https://support.google.com/nonprofits/answer/16245748?hl=enhttps://docs.cloud.google.com/free/docs/free-cloud-features

🧪 If you need something to show before you build

Use the prototype from the AI hackathon rather than commissioning a new one. Your pack already contains the Design Challenge Handover from that event, and a thing that exists and can be demonstrated will settle more arguments than a proposal document.

This is a recommendation, not a finding. The handover file is listed on the Your documents tab; what it contains has not been re-assessed for this purpose.

DRAFT Step 4. Design it, build it, then do it again

Checked against: the maintainability risk named in your own Design Challenge Synthesis, and the resourcing problem in P26. The division of work below is proposed, not quoted.

  • Engage a designer for the report template
    Give them the paper sketch from step 1, the field list from a to d, and your brand. Ask for one template, not a system: the report as it will be seen by the board or the funder who reads it. Sign it off before anything is built.
  • Engage developers for the ingest and the display
    Give them the signed-off template, the named sources from step 1e, the refresh frequency from step 2b, and the de-identification rule. Their job is the automatic path from source to that page, and nothing wider.

    The full ambition

    2–3 source systemsCliniko plus My Outcomes, Outcome Star or monday.com
    Google Cloud Storage (GCS)Sydney region, de-identified
    Human Nature PlatformA far future ambition
    Reports and dashboardsVarious, for the board, funders and the team

    Suggested start: bypass the platform

    2–3 source systemsThe same sources
    Google Cloud Storage (GCS)The same store
    Straight past the platform, not built yet
    Reports and dashboardsStraight from GCS
    DRAFT The suggestion is to bypass the platform at first and connect the reports straight to Google Cloud Storage, to see what the first ones deliver. As more reports get created, that growing set of reports is what justifies building the Human Nature Platform.
  • Insist on one thing in both briefs
    That it can be handed over. Your own pack already named this as the main technical risk: “The main technical risk is maintainability. A clever prototype that only one volunteer understands would be a poor outcome.” Written-down definitions, named owners, no single person holding the keys.
  • Then repeat steps 1 to 4 for the next report
    Second report, third report, then the dashboards. Each pass reuses the plumbing and only adds a source when it has to. Starting on a two-source report means the third source is an addition rather than a rebuild.
  • Re-cost at every pass
    Go back to step 2 and redo the three numbers each time. The cost moves when a report goes from monthly to daily, or when a dashboard goes from three readers to thirty, not when you add rows.
⚠️ Assumed risks in this plan

Not quoted from anywhere as risks. They are inferred from the evidence beside each one, to accept or reject.

Assumed risk: it is built by one person and cannot be handed on.
“The main technical risk is maintainability. A clever prototype that only one volunteer understands would be a poor outcome.”
Design Thinking Challenge/Human Nature - Design Challenge Synthesis and Workshop Prep.docx, Important planning assumptions
Assumed risk: identifiable data reaches the reporting layer because nobody wrote down where the line is.
Step 1e names which system holds each field. Step 3f loads a de-identified sample first. If those two are skipped, the de-identification rule ends up being decided by whoever writes the first query.
Inferred, not quoted. The regulator’s wording on this sits on the Datalake via Google solutions tab.